"There is broad parent interest in a genetic/epigenetic test for ASD"

The quote heading this post - "There is broad parent interest in a genetic/epigenetic test for ASD [autism spectrum disorder]" - comes from the findings reported by Kayla Wagner and colleagues [1]. As per the observation that most parents of those diagnosed with an ASD, or developmental delay (DD) or asymptomatic controls "had positive perceptions toward genetic/epigenetic research in ASD", far from being the 'danger' that it is sometimes portrayed as, the science of genetics seems to have an important standing among many parents.

The Wagner results came about as a result of this research group publishing studies "that demonstrate the utility of RNA sequencing technology (non-coding RNA) to identify children with ASD." They did what few genetic studies have done: asked parents participating in their studies whether what they were doing/finding was of interest to them. This was achieved via the use of a questionnaire which included six themes: "(1) reasons for participating in the epigenetic study; (2) prior knowledge of genetics/epigenetics, and the source of this information; (3) overall interest in genetic/epigenetic testing for ASD; (4) concerns about genetic/epigenetic testing for ASD; (5) preferences about the approach for genetic/epigenetic testing (including age of administration and biofluid of choice); and (6) extent of results to be returned." You'll probably have noted that alongside their use of the term 'genetics' they also talk about a still up-and-coming branch of genetics called epigenetics. I've talked about epigenetics and autism before on this blog (see here and see here) but the description Wager et al use just about says it all: "changes in gene expression, where the changes are not due to modification of the actual DNA sequence, but instead result from modifications that regulate DNA structure and expression." Gene expression seems to be particularly important to the science of epigenetics as per the notion that we don't all walk around with all our genes permanently switched to the 'on' or 'off' position.

Results: quite a few important points emerged from the obtained data. Most parents understood at least a little bit about genetics and some of the processes involved. Epigenetics wasn't as well known about or understood (something which is probably not so surprising). Other points also emerged: "There were no parents (0%, 0/244) concerned about a lack of scientific evidence supporting genetic and epigenetics." But that's not to say that some parents weren't concerned about the implications of genetics and epigenetics, as mention about issues like privacy and insurance status were raised during the Wagner study.

Also: "Nearly all parents (96%, 235/244) indicated that if there were genetic testing for ASD, they were interested in learning results about their child’s risk for ASD." And when it came to results, over three-quarters of all parents expressed a preference for "all epigenetic/genetic results, regardless of whether they were implicated in health and disease" and not just an overview or interpretation of any results. People want data not overviews.

And then to some important but potentially controversial findings: "The majority of parents (71%, 164/231) desired results of a genetic/epigenetic test for ASD when their child was 12 months of age or younger. Over half of parents were interested in receiving results at conception (34%, 78/231) or at birth (37%, 86/231), while fewer requested results at 12 months (17%, 40/231) or at 2 years of age (12%, 27/231)." You can perhaps see where this might be going - particularly 'receiving results at conception' - even if the authors seem to have chosen not to pursue it any further in their discussions.

I'm no bioethicist and so am nowhere near qualified to talk about the ins-and-outs of genetic testing in the context of autism and what implications this could have. I note other commentators have approached this subject previously based on some of the peer-reviewed science in this area (see here) and various points have been raised. One of the important things to bear in mind is that, as it currently stands, there is no single genetic test for all autism. Indeed, allied to the idea that the concept of 'a universal autism gene' is fast becoming a distant memory, genetic studies are serving to further highlight how complex autism actually is.

But there is always the possibility that some day someone will potentially deliver a genetic/epigenetic 'test for some autism'. The question then is how will it be used? What checks and balances will be in place to ensure that it is not misused?

----------

[1] Wagner KE. et al. Parent Perspectives Towards Genetic and Epigenetic Testing for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders. 2019. March 22.

----------

"Having accessed treatment was associated with reporting lower levels of work/school attendance"

I have to admit that I did a bit of a double-take when I came across the quote titling this post - "Having accessed treatment was associated with reporting lower levels of work/school attendance" - in the paper published by Sheila Ali and colleagues [1] (open-access available here).

The findings came from a study that set out to investigate the "factors associated with fatigue, disability and school attendance in young people with severe CFS/ME [chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis]." Part of the study also looked (in a preliminary manner) at whether some of the therapeutic options offered 'for ME/CFS' were up to scratch based on participants' responses and views.

"Questionnaire data were collected in two waves: at baseline (T1), and at follow-up (T2), which was 3–9 months later" as such data were collected from 51 young people "required to have a self-reported diagnosis of CFS/ME." Researchers mention how they focused on participants with "severe CFS" as measured by a self-report 'functional ability scale'. That being said, recruitment phases for the Ali study were not uniform, as two different thresholds for severity were eventually used in different recruitment phases.

No mind, Ali et al asked participants to complete various questionnaires around things like mobility, meaningful education and/or work (including attendance), and level of fatigue. Bearing in mind the use of words like 'fear avoidance' in the Ali paper (possibly denoting the biopsychosocial (BPS) 'sway' of some of the authors), various 'psychological' concepts were also included for study. The data were collated and analysed.

Results: although data for 51 participants were eventually analysed, nearly 400 young people were sent a letter inviting them to participate in the Ali study. Only 56 responses (consent forms and questionnaires) were eventually received which, even taking into account the 'severe CFS' inclusion criteria, represents a pretty low study turnout. This seems to follow a trend among certain types of study of ME/CFS (see here) which is starting to become quite noticeable.

"Thirty-seven (72.5%) participants reported using assistive equipment such as crutches, walking frames, ramps, stair-lifts and shower chairs. Thirty-three participants (64.7%) reported that they used a wheelchair. Nine participants (17.6%) reported that they were bed-bound." Contained within those sentences is the real cost of ME/CFS to something like mobility. On top of all that, researchers also observed that approaching 90% of their cohort were also taking some form of medication (I assume pertinent to things like mobility issues and beyond). In terms of how things like mobility issues impacted on participation in 'meaningful' education and/or work, we are told that only a quarter of participants "had been able to attend school, college or work in the past year." That's 'in the past year'.

Then back to those 'treatments' and their effects. So: "Although this was a naturalistic study and not an evaluation of treatment, it is notable that the majority of participants reported that they had accessed some form of treatment, and yet the mean scores for fatigue and social functioning had not changed considerably by T2." What sorts of treatments had they tried I hear you ask? Well, table 1 (see here) provides some details. The most popular treatment 'accessed' was "CBT, GET or both with at least one other treatment" closely followed by "CBT, GET or both." Allied to other independent data suggesting that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are failing many patients with ME/CFS (see here and see here and see here), and the case grows ever stronger for new treatment directions to be pursued. Such research directions should perhaps also be minus words like 'fear avoidance' or other psychobabble inclinations that have pervaded ME/CFS thought down the years. Indeed, one has to ask who would advocate for treatments that are seemingly at best ineffective and at worst downright detrimental to the patient group who are 'accessing' them?

There are some other points noted in the Ali paper including things like how "low mood is a consequence of having CFS/ME" and how "symptoms of CFS/ME and levels of functioning can fluctuate over time." These follow similar sentiments expressed in other research (see here and see here) along the lines of CFS/ME being very much a real physical illness with both physical and psychological effects.

There are some obvious caveats to mention about the Ali study, specifically around the sole use of questionnaires without any other 'actigraphic' form of inquiry (to measure something like activity levels), the representativeness of results, and the reliance on self-report when it came to diagnoses. Although I've also been pretty harsh on the effectiveness of the treatment options accessed, I will direct you to some author comments on this issue and how "the effects of treatment would not be seen within such a short period of time." I'm not too sure about such sentiments but, in the interests of balance, give them airtime in this study write-up.

Despite all that, the Ali findings add further to our knowledge about ME/CFS in young adults. They demonstrate how 'life-destroying' the illness is (are) and can be, and what that means to those who suffer with it (them). They also add to the multiple voices - research and patient voices - demanding a greater clinical focus on ME/CFS, and how objective, biological science in particular, needs to be front-and-centre of any new direction. But I'll also reiterate that any new focus and new direction needs to be minus the psychobabble; indeed it may be unethical not to [2]...

----------

[1] Ali S. et al. Psychological and demographic factors associated with fatigue and social adjustment in young people with severe chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a preliminary mixed-methods study. J Behav Med. 2019 Jan 25.

[2] O'Leary D. et al. Ethical classification of ME/CFS in the United Kingdom. Bioethics. 2019 Feb 8.

----------

Cannabis treatment and autism continued

Consider this post talking about the findings reported by Lihi Bar-Lev Schleider and colleagues [1] on the topic of "the epidemiology of ASD [autism spectrum disorder] patients receiving medical cannabis treatment and to describe its safety and efficacy" an extension of other discussions on this blog (see here). Indeed, similar to the paper from Adi Aran et al [2] the name of research game was to look at 'real life experiences' of medicinal cannabis use 'for autism' in Israel (where medicinal cannabis use has been approved for some groups). I foresee this research area growing in months to come...

The focus of the Bar-Lev Schleider paper was CBD - cannabidiol - once again, a component of cannabis distinct from another compound, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is described as being "the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis." I say the focus was on CBD, but authors mention how: "The treatment in majority of the patients was based on cannabis oil containing 30% CBD and 1.5% THC."

Researchers relied on data "prospectively collected as part of the treatment program of 188 ASD patients treated with medical cannabis between 2015 and 2017." Said participants were an average age of around 13 years old, mostly male and all diagnosed with autism or ASD "in accordance with the accepted practice in Israel." Epilepsy was also mentioned in about 15% of cases, which is interesting in light of the increasing (media) focus on the use of medical cannabis 'for' certain types of epilepsy.

Results: I'm not entirely sure how outcomes with regards to safety and efficacy were actually collected. What I mean by this is that authors describe the use of "the global assessment approach" which meant asking questions like "How would you rate the general effect of cannabis on your child condition?" to participants' parents, but don't seemingly provide details on any specific validated questionnaires used. You might well ask if any such questionnaires exist at the moment with reference to the use of medicinal cannabis, but this doesn't really help matters. Bearing such an issue in mind, researchers reported that: "After six months of treatment 82.4% of patients (155) were in active treatment and 60.0% (93) have been assessed; 28 patients (30.1%) reported a significant improvement, 50 (53.7%) moderate, 6 (6.4%) slight and 8 (8.6%) had no change in their condition." 'Improvement in what?' you might ask. Well, various classes of behaviour are described including those implicated in daily activity - sleep, concentration on daily tasks - among other things. The authors also commented on how medicinal cannabis also seemed to have positively impacted on the occurrence of seizures too: "The improved symptoms at 6 months included seizures, of the 13 patients on an active treatment at six months 11 patients (84.6%) reported disappearances of the symptoms and two patients reported improvement."

And then to another important issue to consider when examining any kind of medicinal product: the presence of (adverse) side-effects. In this respect, we are told: "The most common side effects, reported at six months by 23 patients (25.2%, with at least one side effect) were: restlessness (6 patients, 6.6%), sleepiness (3, 3.2%), psychoactive effect (3, 3.2%), increased appetite (3, 3.2%), digestion problems (3, 3.2%), dry mouth (2, 2.2%) and lack of appetite (2, 2.2%)." Although most of these seem quite minor side-effects, it's still important to recognise them and the distress that they might bring particularly when 'digestion problems' *might* very well compound some already over-represented gastrointestinal (GI) issues already talked about with autism in mind (see here).

"Cannabis as a treatment for autism spectrum disorders patients appears to be well-tolerated, safe and seemingly effective option to relieve symptoms." That's the conclusion reached by Bar-Lev Schleider and colleagues on the basis of their findings. They do note how their results are based on "an observational study with no control group and therefore no causality between cannabis therapy and improvement in patients’ wellbeing can be established" which is important. Important too is the need for further discussions about the ethics of using something like medicinal cannabis in the context of autism [3] and then, if further hurdles are overcome, discussions about the hows-and-whys of a clinical trial or two. Indeed, speaking of clinical trials (see here)...

And as I write this [4] there's more, lots more [5]...

----------

[1] Bar-Lev Schleider  L. et al. Real life Experience of Medical Cannabis Treatment in Autism: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy. Scientific Reports. 2019: 9.

[2] Aran A. et al. Brief Report: Cannabidiol-Rich Cannabis in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Severe Behavioral Problems-A Retrospective Feasibility Study. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018 Oct 31.

[3] Duvall SW. et al. Ethical Implications for Providers Regarding Cannabis Use in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 4. pii: e20180558.

[4] Barchel D. et al. Oral Cannabidiol Use in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder to Treat Related Symptoms and Co-morbidities. Front Pharmacol. 2019 Jan 9;9:1521.

[5] Aran A. et al. Lower circulating endocannabinoid levels in children with autism spectrum disorder. Molecular Autism. 2019; 10:2.

----------

The DePaul Symptom Questionnaire for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)

It's another short descriptive post today as I bring the paper by Len Jason & Madison Sunnquist [1] to your attention charting "the development of the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) to assess symptoms of the major chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) case definitions."

I say this is a descriptive post because the Jason/Sunnquist paper provides some important technical details about the DSQ and its evolution; all from a research group who seem to be pretty clued into ME/CFS and its very wide range of clinical presentation (see here).

There are some important aspects included in the paper; not least a focus on the issue of post-exertional malaise (PEM), something which has been a real focus to these researchers (see here). The other very welcomed side to the Jason/Sunnquist paper are the various links to the DSQ derivatives all provided free of charge.

'Nuff said.

----------

[1] Jason LA. & Sunnquist M. The Development of the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire: Original, Expanded, Brief, and Pediatric Versions. Front Pediatr. 2018;6:330.

----------

On autism and exposure to fragranced consumer products

The findings reported by Anne Steinemann [1] tap into an important issue seemingly relevant to many people diagnosed with autism or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD): exposure to various fragranced products such as air fresheners, deodorants and perfumes can seemingly cause various adverse physiological reactions. I know to some people this might not seem like particularly groundbreaking research, but when you read that almost 60% of autistic adults have been reporting "lost workdays or lost a job, in the past year, due to fragranced product exposure in the workplace" it kinda turns into something a lot more important.

Steinemann reports results across various different geographical cohorts pertinent to "the effects of fragranced products on autistic individuals ages 18–65 in the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom." This was a questionnaire-based study, a "web-based" survey, "part of the SSI [Survey Sampling International] web-based panel." The numbers included for study are in the thousands, with some 4% reporting "medically diagnosed autism" upon which the Steinemann study is based.

The conclusion: "83.7% report adverse health effects from fragranced products." Said effects included "migraine headaches (42.9%), neurological problems (34.3%), respiratory problems (44.7%), and asthma attacks (35.9%)." Further: "Health problems can be severe, with 74.1% of these effects considered potentially disabling under legislation in each country."

As you can perhaps see, exposure to fragranced products is potentially an important issue for many people on the autism spectrum. The Steinemann results are based on discussions with adults (18-65 years) but I daresay there may be much to see with younger cohorts too. I'd also be interested to see whether issues like comorbidity potentially over-represented alongside autism might also exert something of an important effect too.

Solutions? Well, I don't think it's too much to ask if public and workplaces could perhaps look at some of their spaces with a view to reducing their use of fragranced products. If for example, this means cutting back on things like those automated air fresheners that periodically squirt out a cloud of smelly stuff, I'm pretty sure quite a few more people - more than just autistic people - would benefit. Indeed, with all the focus on 'autism hours' these days, I wonder if this could be something to add to the list of being 'autism-friendly'? As for personal scented products and the like, well, if you know that you're going to be interacting with autistic people who might be particularly sensitive to fragrances, how about giving those scented products a miss for that day? I promise that you will still smell OK. I don't think these are unreasonable requests.

Then the next question: why? Why do such symptoms come about and what are the biological mechanism through which such 'sensitivity' occurs? Well, it appears that Steinemann has some research history when it comes to fragrances and autism [2] albeit looking at "the neuromodifications of three selected fragrances on male and female human fetal brain neurons." Oxytocin and arginine vasopressin were the molecular targets in that study. Whether there may be more to see from these compounds in relation to fragrance sensitivity in adults is a question to ask. Such issues also perhaps overlap with other research talking about olfaction and autism (see here and see here). I'm also minded to point readers in the direction of another condition/set of symptoms that could be relevant: multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Yes, yes, I know that MCS is disputed in some quarters, even to the point of mentioning the word 'psychosomatic' on some occasions [3], but it strikes me that such high rates of 'fragrance intolerance' in relation to autism *could* also be tied into the presentation of MCS. And such high numbers reporting such an intolerance is probably not just 'all in the mind'.

----------

[1] Steinemann A. Fragranced consumer products: effects on autistic adults in the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health. 2018; 10: 1137-1142.

[2] Sealey LA. et al. Environmental factors may contribute to autism development and male bias: Effects of fragrances on developing neurons. Environ Res. 2015 Oct;142:731-8.

[3] Jimenez XF. et al. Polyallergy (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) is Associated with Excessive Healthcare Utilization, Greater Psychotropic Use, and Greater Mental Health/Functional Somatic Syndrome Disorder Diagnoses: A Large Cohort Retrospective Study. Psychosomatics. 2018 Aug 2. pii: S0033-3182(18)30418-3.

----------

"a Brief Parent-Report Screen for Common Gastrointestinal Disorders in Autism"

I wanted to bring the findings reported by Kara Margolis and colleagues [1] to your attention today. Their observations pertinent to the "development of a brief, parent-report screen that relies minimally upon the child’s ability to report or localize pain for identifying children with ASD [autism spectrum disorder] at risk for one of three common gastrointestinal disorders (functional constipation, functional diarrhea, and gastroesophageal reflux disease)" represent something that 'fills a gap' in autism research and practice. Their authorship group including some of the great and the good looking gastrointestinal (GI) issues being over-represented in autism (see here and see here) was also an attraction to blogging about these results.

So, GI or gut problems are no stranger to autism. I don't think anyone (anymore) would seriously question such a finding given the multitude of times it has been recorded in the peer-reviewed science domain and beyond. Indeed, it's now even becoming more readily accepted that outside of functional bowel issues such as constipation and diarrhoea being over-represented in autism (see here), so other more pathological bowel states are also present for some too (see here and see here). And be in no doubt that such issues can be truly life-altering in their effects (see here and see here)...

It should also be acknowledged that when it came to starting the conversation about bowel issues and autism, it was parents and caregivers that led the way with their very astute observations of their nearest and dearest. Yes, there have always been 'professionals' who've shown an interest (and concern) in such observations, but parents and caregivers were there first. And despite many parents not (initially) being 'gastrointestinal experts', their observations, in the most part, were/are typically considered pretty accurate ones (see here).

So, Margolis et al talk about how the development of a screening instrument is the next logical step to ensure that parent reports of their children with autism potentially presenting with bowel issues are accurately recorded, onward to eventually leading to more specialised screening, evaluation and hopefully, appropriate intervention. Over 130 parents of children diagnosed with autism registered with the Autism Treatment Network (ATN) initiative agreed to take part in the study. Initially, parents were given a 35-item questionnaire looking at 3 particular functional bowel issues: "functional constipation, functional diarrhea, and gastroesophageal reflux disease" and asked to respond on behalf of their children. Gastroenterologists were also asked to evaluate the children; said professional were blinded to the parental responses to the questionnaire. When looking at these combined data sources, researchers were able to whittle down the 35-item questionnaire to 17 questions that seemed most important to the lay identification of potential bowel issues. Some further nifty statistics led authors to conclude that: "this 17-item screen identified children having one or more of these disorders with a sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 43%, and a positive predictive value of 67%." Ergo, the authors have 'the makings of' a potentially important parent/caregiver-based questionnaire to assess for the possible presence of bowel issues in autism. The makings of...

Obviously more work is required in this area. This instrument is labelled a 'screen' for such bowel issues so there is still the requirement for professional involvement when it comes to diagnosis and intervention. But one should never forget the very important perspective that parents/caregivers can have with regards to the presence of bowel issues in their children...

----------

[1] Margolis KG. et al. Development of a Brief Parent-Report Screen for Common Gastrointestinal Disorders in Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018. Oct 22.

----------

More welcomed (and interesting) research on pathological demand avoidance (PDA)

Pathological demand avoidance (PDA) [syndrome] is a label that currently occupies an unusual place in psychiatric and developmental circles. Defined by "obsessive non-compliance, distress, and florid challenging and socially inappropriate behaviour", PDA has seemingly found a place (somewhere) on the autism spectrum, but at the time of writing, does not actually occupy any unique position in any of the current systems of diagnostic classification mentioning autism (e.g. DSM, ICD). The National Autistic Society (NAS) here in Blighty talk about PDA in the context of "a behaviour profile within the autistic spectrum" but that's just one description among others.

The rise and rise of the term PDA as a specific diagnosis is firmly rooted (geographically) here in Blighty. This is probably as a result of the first description of PDA emanating from the late Elizabeth Newson during her time at the Early Years Diagnostic Centre (now called the Elizabeth Newson centre). Not everyone however is totally convinced that PDA is an independent syndrome (see here) or indeed, whether it is deserving of its specific and exclusive link with the autism spectrum at the cost of other labels... I'll be touching on that last point again in this post.

After that long introduction, I bring the findings reported by Vincent Egan and colleagues [1] to the blogging table, and some more welcome research in this area. The name of the research game for Egan et al was to adapt the Extreme Demand Avoidance Questionnaire (EDA-Q) "an informant-rating instrument" into a self-report version - the Extreme Demand Avoidance Questionnaire—Adult version (EDA-QA). Two studies are reported on in this context: "In Study 1, we use this measure to examine the relationship between PDA traits, ASD [autism spectrum disorder] traits, and other psychopathology dimensions, in a community sample of adults reporting self-identified psychopathology" and: "The second study examined the EDA-QA in a community sample and measured ASD traits more thoroughly, using the full ASQ." Yes, that's ASQ as in AQ (the Autism Spectrum Quotient) "used to quantify cognitive and behavioural features associated with ASD" and all the baggage that goes with it (see here and see here).

Results: yes, the EDA-QA was "reliable, univariate, and correlated with negative affect, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism, and ASQ score." This bearing in mind that the nearly 350 people who took part in study 1 were all self-reporting on the various instruments used, were "recruited from a variety of specialist on-line blogs and community forums focusing on the needs and concerns of persons with ASD" and were described as "a highly educated group." I also note that the words 'self-identifying' were also used extensively during the study write-up, specifically: "29 individuals reporting self-identified ASD also reported having PDA, 44 persons claimed to have PDA alone, and a further 19 self-identified PDA alongside depression or anxiety; separately, 59 persons claimed to have formally diagnosed ASD." Even the authors acknowledge that "self-reported ASD is not without it’s difficulties." No arguments from me there (see here and see here) and others have similar opined.

When it came to study 2 results, we are told that: "A path analysis to fit the data indicated that ASQ and EDA-QA scores were positively related." Irrespective of my various musings on how the ASQ (AQ) is not seemingly 'specific' when it comes to traits being 'linked to autism', this is an encouraging result. But there was more too... "The EDA-QA measure was associated with lower agreeableness, lower emotional stability, and higher scores on the ASQ. The effects were stronger for personality traits than for ASQ scores, suggesting it may be personality that differentiates how ASD traits are expressed, with more emotionally unstable and antagonistic persons with ASD expressing PDA-type qualities." One of the thoughts I had about this finding - 'personality that differentiates how ASD traits are expressed' - is the 'tie up' between the expression of autistic traits in relation to something like borderline personality disorder (BPD) (see here and see here) that has become more frequent in the peer-reviewed science arena recently. Yet more evidence perhaps that 'self-identifying' or 'self-diagnosis' when it comes to autism is not necessarily the most accurate measure?

The authors conclude that their instrument has promise and "could be easily integrated into assessment packages currently used with prisoners, mentally disordered offenders, and homeless people, where PDA may be suspected." Minus any big headlines regarding those particular groups (see here for example), I think examination of PDA in some of those contexts could be rather revealing. The link, for example, between PDA and offending behaviour (see here) in the context that SRED (Self-Report Early Delinquency Scale) scores - indicating "higher overall self-reported delinquency" -  significantly positively correlated with EDA-QA is an intriguing finding. That also AQ scores showed no such association with SRED scores might also suggest that PDA is not as necessarily well suited to an all-encompassing link to autism (autistic traits) as many people might think...

Let's hope that there is more research to come on the topic of PDA.

----------

[1] Egan V. et al. The Measurement of Adult Pathological Demand Avoidance Traits. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018 Aug 23.

----------

More welcome research on post-exertional malaise (PEM) in ME/CFS

The findings reported by Lily Chu and colleagues [1] provide the blogging fodder today, and some further welcome research into the concept of post-extertional malaise (PEM) in the context of chronic fatigue syndrome / myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

PEM represents a cardinal feature of CFS/ME, where physical exertion - whether covering exercise or even just daily activities - brings about a period of (even more) exhaustion, weakness and fatigue. As per my previous discussion of the paper by McManimen and colleagues [2], there's still some ambiguity when it comes to clinically defining PEM (and indeed, whether the word 'malaise' covers the range of symptoms that the term includes). What is clear however is that PEM is real and can be absolutely disabling.

The Chu study, including the name Jose Montoya on the authorship list, set out to "describe symptoms associated with and the time course of PEM." Authors designed an online survey "asking subjects about the history and course of their ME/CFS" that asked a few questions about PEM. This included: "1) What symptoms, if any, are triggered or worsened by physical or mental activity?; 2) What symptoms are triggered or worsened by emotional distress?; 3) How soon usually after starting mental or physical exertion does your illness begin to worsen?; and 4) If you feel worse after activities, how long does this worsening usually last?" They also describe how they were careful not to actually use the word 'PEM' during the course of their research in order to "try to decrease the chances that subjects already diagnosed with ME/CFS would automatically answer our question based on their knowledge of or preconceived notions about PEM." Smart move.

Results: some 150 people as part of something called the MGEISD (Genetic Expression and Immune System Dynamics) study responded to the survey. While some of the participants were formally diagnosed with ME/CFS, the cohort also included those "waiting to be seen at the clinic, members of online ME/CFS forums, and participants of local ME/CFS support groups." Although all were telephone screened to see "if they fitted Fukuda 1994 CFS criteria" one does need to be a little careful with describing such a process as providing anything approaching a 'homogeneous' group.

"Most subjects (N = 129, 90%) experienced PEM with both physical/ cognitive exertion and emotional distress." There didn't seem to be any specific 'rules' in terms of the connection between the 'stressor' and onset of PEM, although around 40% of participants reported experiencing PEM within 24 hours. This was however subject to quite some variation. Symptoms reported in relation to the PEM questionnaire items were also variable. Fatigue is up there as one would expect, but also things like sleeping issues and headache were noted. Around 40% of participants also reported on a constellation of PEM symptoms: fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain and "at least one immune-related symptom."

What is becoming a little clearer from this and other research is that (a) PEM or whatever you want to call it is a real issue for many people diagnosed with CFS/ME and (b) the symptoms of PEM are not necessarily uniform in either character or timescale (onset, duration, etc.) What's still missing? Well, biology is still missing from quite a lot of the PEM literature; biology in terms of what PEM looks like on a physiological level and whether there may be something that can be done to alleviate it at a biological level aside from resting up (often for days at a time). I've talked about this before on this blog, in terms of biologically characterising PEM and how, for example, it might look in terms of defining recovery from ME/CFS (see here). To that end, lots more investigation in this area is implied...

And while on the topic of ME/CFS, I'll draw your attention to the paper by Karfakis [3] talking about the "biopolitics of CFS/ME." Yes, there has been and continues to be lots of that, including the phrase: "CFS/ME is an illness trapped between medicine and psychology". Discuss in 500 words.

----------

[1] Chu L. et al. Deconstructing post-exertional malaise in myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome: A patient-centered, cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 1;13(6):e0197811.

[2] McManimen SL. et al. Deconstructing post-exertional malaise: An exploratory factor analysis. Journal of health psychology. August 2016:1359105316664139.

[3] Karfakis N. The biopolitics of CFS/ME. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2018 Jun 8. pii: S1369-8486(17)30070-5.

----------

ALSPAC examines... pregnancy risk factors and oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder

ALSPAC mentioned in the title of this post refers to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parent and Children, something of quite a regular feature on this blog by all accounts (see here and see here for examples). On this blogging occasion, I'm talking about ALSPAC in relation to the research paper published by I. Hyun Ruisch and colleagues [1] who reported that: "Common and potentially preventable pregnancy risk factors were independently related to both offspring ODD [oppositional-defiant disorder] and CD [conduct disorder] symptomatology in children from the general population."

ODD and CD represent a couple of the most prevalent 'disruptive behavioural' conditions seen nowadays. Whilst subtly different from one and another both in scope and severity, both represent conditions where control and in particular, self-control in accordance with cultural rules and norms, is perhaps not as it should be. I've mentioned one or other of these conditions in previous posts on this blog (see here for example) and the heightened risk of future adverse outcomes seemingly associated with them.

As with many (nay, all) behavioural and psychiatric conditions, science is still at a bit of a loss as to how they come about, accepting that they all probably [variably] include genetic and non-genetic factors working differently in different people. Ruisch et al set about utilising data from ALSPAC to ascertain if and whether "a broad range of pregnancy factors" might play some [statistically significant] role. Their results are quite revealing...

So: "Higher ODD symptom scores were linked to paracetamol use... and life events stress... during pregnancy." Further: "Higher CD symptom scores were linked to maternal smoking..., life events stress... and depressive symptoms... during pregnancy."

It should be noted that ODD and CD symptoms scores were gathered via the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) as per other ALSPAC research occasions (see here). Researchers also quizzed both mothers and teachers of their children; thus providing two potentially different snapshots of functioning and their related factors.

In relation to that sentence on "Common and potentially preventable pregnancy risk factors were independently related to both offspring ODD and CD symptomatology in children" my eye was immediately drawn to two variables reported as being connected to said diagnoses: pregnancy paracetamol use and maternal smoking; both of which have appeared with increasing regularity in relation to adverse offspring developmental outcomes.

First, paracetamol also known as acetaminophen to our cousins across the Pond and other parts of the world. What can I say? It seems to be going from bad to worse for this go-to over-the-counter medicine with regards to pregnancy use *associations* and offspring developmental factors (see here). Yes, I appreciate that more studies need to be done on the possible pregnancy effects of this medicine, but the emerging peer-reviewed science is starting to look quite consistent. And many of the studies pointing the finger at paracetamol, like ALSPAC, are not to be under-estimated in size or power...

Second, maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy. Again, something that has been talked about before on this blog (see here) in the context of related clinical labels. We can't yet say that 'pregnancy smoking causes offspring CD' because proof of cause-and-effect are rarely established by such observational studies. But much like the paracetamol story, the data is becoming more and more consistent for a possible effect of pregnancy smoking on child development. And for various other reasons, smoking during pregnancy is generally not thought of being a great thing for the developing child.

More investigations are indicated but clues are starting to emerge.

----------

[1] Ruisch IH. et al. Pregnancy risk factors in relation to oppositional-defiant and conduct disorder symptoms in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Feb 23;101:63-71.

----------

Autistic traits + borderline personality disorder traits = enhanced risk of suicide ideation?

Following some quite recent discussions on this blog about how autism-related dimensions are not necessarily always autism-specific dimensions (see here) in the context of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), I'm talking today about the findings reported by Henri Chabrol & Patrick Raynal [1].

They detail some still emerging evidence that, alongside "significant comorbidity between ASD [autism spectrum disorder] and BPD", there could be some rather important outcomes arising from possessing both significant autistic traits and borderline personality disorder traits in the more general population when it comes to risk of suicide ideation. Further, that such data could also cast some light on that important issue for both clinical conditions and contribute to the pressing need to reduce any excess risk(s).

I've covered the issue of suicide - ideation, attempted and completion - on this blog a few times (see here). It's a topic that requires careful handling (see here) and something that, in respect of the core blogging material here, requires important continued attention (see here and see here).

Chabrol & Raynal detail results following the self-report of several parameters: autistic and BPD traits, thoughts of suicide and "depressive symptomatology" in a cohort of college students (N=474). They reported that, whilst BPD traits and autistic traits were only "weakly correlated", those participants who presented with both high BPD and high autistic traits (approaching 20% of their total sample) were the ones who expressed "the highest level of suicidal ideation."

Bearing in mind that this was research carried out with a 'non-clinical' population and a population that might not be necessarily completely representative of everyone else, additional investigations are warranted. Whether for example, the clinical combination of autism and BPD might elevate the risk of suicide ideation or beyond is one issue to be explored, particularly given research observing that suicide risk is not unknown to the diagnosis of BPD. I might also add that given the possibility of even greater complexity in behavioural/psychiatric presentation [2] coinciding with other observations in relation to some autism (see here), quite a wide research view might need to be taken. This coinciding with more and more evidence to suggest that autism is not typically a stand-alone diagnosis (see here).

And if anyone needs to talk to someone, organisations like the Samaritans are only an email or phone call away...

----------

[1] Chabrol H. & Raynal P. The co-occurrence of autistic traits and borderline personality disorder traits is associated to increased suicidal ideation in nonclinical young adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2018. Feb 15.

[2] Fan AH. & Hassell J. Bipolar disorder and comorbid personality psychopathology: a review of the literature. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Nov;69(11):1794-803.

----------

Bullying and autism: not always originating from where you might expect...

There is something rather uncomfortable about the findings reported by Imar Toseeb and colleagues [1] but, at the same time, they do raise an important issue that needs to be openly discussed. Specifically their findings on: "sibling bullying, and the associated psychopathological adversities, in children with and without ASD [autism spectrum disorder]" deserve some airtime.

Bullying and autism is quite a regular talking point in the peer-reviewed research literature (see here) and beyond. Although a diagnosis of autism is by no means protective of someone becoming a bully or being involved in what could be considered bullying behaviour, it is far more typical that those with autism are going to be a victim of bullying rather than perpetrator (see here). Indeed, I reluctantly use the word 'vulnerable' yet again on this occasion but...

When one thinks about bullying in any context including that with autism in mind I would imagine that the school bully who name calls or becomes physical aggressive towards someone - usually smaller and quieter than them - probably first springs to mind. Siblings by contrast, conjure up an image of being caring, supportive and again, with autism in mind, often very protective of their brother(s) and/or sister(s) given their important role, present and probably future. And indeed, many, many siblings are just that (see here).

But real life is rarely so clear-cut or 'homogeneous' as many parents, whether with children diagnosed with autism or not, will attest. Siblings argue, fight and probably because of how well they 'know each other', often know all the right buttons to press to get their required reaction. And yes, behaviour sometimes can spill over to what would be considered bullying under any other circumstance...

Toseeb et al started with the hypothesis that: "children with ASD (child has ASD but their sibling does not) would experience higher levels of sibling bullying compared to those without ASD (child and sibling do not have ASD)." They arrived at this hypothesis on the basis of various factors such as a role for the social-communicative issues that follow autism, the possible effect of the 'broader autism phenotype' (BAP) on siblings, and issues such as a greater frequency of aggression - "reactive aggression" - accompanying particularly boys with autism.

They relied on data from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) (a resource that has been mentioned before on this blog) and eventually included data from nearly 500 children with autism alongside over 13,000 not-autism controls. The question(s) on sibling bullying were asked at 11 years of age and went: "he/she was asked to respond to two questions on a six-point scale (never, less often, every few months, approximately once a month, approximately once a week, most days): “how often do your brothers or sisters hurt you or pick on you on purpose?” (victimization) and “how often do you hurt or pick on your brothers or sisters on purpose?” (perpetration)." Responses were coded according to who did what and how often. Various other measures were also examined as part of the MCS and used in the Toseeb paper: socio-demographic data (single parent status, birth order, number of siblings, household incomes), parenting style, psychopathology and cognition.

Results: children diagnosed with autism or ASD were more likely to be bullied by their non-autistic sibling compared with those who did not have autism. This finding held "even after controlling for socio-demographic and family level variables" and "was associated with adverse psychopathologies." Further: "having ASD, being a girl, of White ethnicity, having more siblings, and experiencing harsher parenting were all associated with increased odds of being bullied by a sibling." Whilst we're on the topic of 'adverse psychopathologies, it's perhaps pertinent to mention the findings reported by Dantchev and colleagues [2] observing a possible connection between sibling bullying receipt and psychotic disorder. Yes, it is quite an extreme example, but nonetheless demonstrates the effects bullying can have long-term. I might also refer you back to some discussion arising from the ICF core sets development with autism in mind too (see here).

I digress. I note also that authors discuss sibling bullying as a two-way street: "Our findings indicate that children with ASD are specifically at increased risk of sibling victimization as a bully-victim."

As I said at the beginning of this post, this all makes for uncomfortable reading. If it's not bad enough that a child may be being bullied at school to also then potentially learn that there is little respite from such behaviour at home, makes for an uncomfortable (intolerable?) situation all-round. The question then arises minus any sweeping generalisations: what can be done about sibling bullying for the good of all concerned? And please, don't just solely suggest 'coping strategies' for the bullying victim either.

----------

[1] Toseeb U. et al. The Prevalence and Psychopathological Correlates of Sibling Bullying in Children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018 Feb 8.

[2] Dantchev S. et al. Sibling bullying in middle childhood and psychotic disorder at 18 years: a prospective cohort study. Psychological Medicine. 2018. Feb 12.

----------

FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) - a trial protocol and some questions...

FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) is an initiative discussed in a recent study protocol paper published by Sarah Baos and colleagues [1]. It continues a research interest based on previous published results from a trial undertaken in the Netherlands by Sanne Nijhof and colleagues [2] looking at a possible intervention option for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) (also referred to as myalgic encephalomyelitis, ME by some).

Said intervention option - Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET (FITNET) - is "a web-based cognitive-behavioural treatment accessible to patients and both parents, based on the existing face-to-face CBT [cognitive behaviour therapy] protocol for adolescents developed by the ECCF [Expert Centre for Chronic Fatigue (Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, ECCF)]." The previous Nijhof findings concluded that: "FITNET offers a readily accessible and highly effective treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome" on the basis of previous (registered) trial results.

The recent Baos paper detailing 'what researchers are going to do' is looking to build on the previous Nijhof findings to determine whether "it is effective in the National Health Service (NHS) or if it is cost-effective." Alongside the descriptions offered by Baos et al, trial authors have also prospectively registered their intention to undertake this study (see here).

I don't want to recite all the study details described by Baos et al (the paper is open-access) but I do think a few points are worth noting and a few questions perhaps need to be asked. I say this on the basis that mention of the letters/words CBT in the context of CFS/ME has some 'history' (see here and see here for a part of that history). Also, at the time of writing this post, some of the premises for implementing the FITNET-NHS trial are also subject to 're-inspection' (see here) in light of fairly recent changes to official CFS/ME management guidance in countries outside of the UK (see here)...

Anyhow, point 1: "This is an RCT comparing FITNET-NHS with Activity Management for paediatric CFS/ME." RCT means randomised-controlled trial and means participants (planned 700+ aged 11-17 years old) will be randomly placed in either the treatment arm of the study or the 'activity management' control group. Actually, the authors mention another important detail in respect of the study progression: "An internal pilot study will be conducted with continuation of the trial based on achieving defined criteria." What this means is that certain criteria need to be met before the trial progresses, following a sort of pseudo-adaptive design. The stop criteria we are told are: "(1) the recruitment rate is substantially below target during the last 6 months of the internal pilot study and if the qualitative data suggests that we cannot improve recruitment by changing recruitment methods or (2) the qualitative data suggests that the interventions are not acceptable to participants." I've talked about recruitment rates in relation to trials run by some of the Baos authors before on this blog (see here). In terms of 'acceptability' of the interventions, well, the findings from Geraghty and colleagues [3] perhaps need airing in line with some of the history around the use of CBT in the context of CFS/ME. Will all of this affect recruitment rates? We'll see.

Point 2: Activity management (the comparator). There are various elements - mandatory, flexible, prohibited - that such activity management will include. Prohibited elements, I think, mean that specialist therapists cannot discuss in detail things like "feelings, beliefs and how they change" nor "feelings and their relationship with behaviour." Mandatory elements by contrast include finding a baseline level of activity, "to record time spent each day doing high-energy cognitive activities" and importantly: "Increasing activity by 10–20% each week." Yes, this is an active comparator that looks like it is expecting quite an increase in activity over the duration of the study. I think they call this graded exercise therapy (GET). All of this will be delivered on-line and participants will "receive treatment for 3 to 6 months." As you can see, things like recording activity levels (the ActiveME app is mentioned) is going to be predominantly (exclusively?) done via "paper/electronic diaries." I'm a little cautious of this method, and once again (see here) need to question why more objective activity trackers such as the wonderful technologies headed under the title of actigraphy are not being fully utilised with CFS/ME research in mind (see here for another example). Given also that the primary outcome measure is: "Disability measured using the Physical Function Scale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months after randomisation", surely such actigraphic data would provide a really sound comparator to such subjective scoring?

Point 3: There are a range of secondary outcomes listed by Boas and colleagues in relation to measuring any effects from intervention and/or comparator. I am happy to see that quality of life (QoL) will be measured via use of the EQ-5D-Y (EuroQoL health-related quality of life questionnaire, Youth version) given some chatter about this previously (see here and see here). But there are some things missing from such an outcome line-up; a primary one seems to be that although fatigue and physical function is kinda (see above) mentioned in an analysis sense, more specific facets of CFS/ME are not seemingly being addressed such as PEM (post-exertional malaise). I note from the study website for example, the authors talk about how "fatigue and other symptoms get worse after exertion" suggesting that they know all about PEM. The question then: why not try and test for it and importantly, assess it before and after intervention? OK, I know that measuring PEM is still more of an art rather than a science [4], but I wonder if it would have been helpful for researchers to also potentially think about examining biochemistry for example, as well as psychology and behaviour throughout their study to aid some further investigation in this important area. Y'know things like immune function for example [5] which seems to be an area of research rising (see here) and could add something extra when it comes to sub-grouping among the CFS/ME population? Oh, and just in case you were thinking 'eh?' when it comes to me talking about CBT potentially affecting immune function, have a look at another trial protocol from Schakel and colleagues [6] and the measures they want to use/are using as part of their study "to investigate the effects of a psychological intervention on self-reported and physiological health outcomes in response to immune and psychophysiological challenges."

Point 4: Safety. I am happy to see that safety of the intervention(s) is also discussed in the Boas paper. To quote for example: "We will define a serious deterioration in health as: (1) clinician-reported serious deterioration in health, (2) a decrease of ≥ 20 in SF-36-PFS between baseline and 3, 6 or 12 months or scores of ‘much’ or ‘very much’ worse on the Clinical Global Impression Scale or (3) withdrawal from treatment because of feeling worse." Good news indeed, and I assume this covers the comparator arm of the study too. What is perhaps missing from such study safety features however, is a little more detail on what screening will be carried out before participants are allowed on to the study in order to reduce/minimise any potential adverse events or even worse, include those who really shouldn't be included in such a study ('first, do no harm'). So: "Young people will be excluded if any of the following apply: (1) they are not disabled by fatigue (defined in eligibility screening), (2) their fatigue is due to another cause, (3) they are unable to complete video calls or FITNET-NHS online chapters or (4) they report pregnancy at assessment." Under 'their fatigue is due to another cause' I'm a little unsure about what this might mean. Does this for example, infer that all potential participants will be screened for mitochondrial disease in light of other data suggesting overlap with cases of CFS/ME (see here) and a possible/probably connection with some fatigue-related symptoms? How is one able to rule out so many potential causes of fatigue other than CFS? As to the idea that there may be those 'unable to complete video calls or FITNET-NHS chapters', well, I imagine that excludes those who might be at a more severe presentation stage of their illness? This then introduces the issue of representativeness of any trial results subsequently obtained...

I applaud the authors for communicating as much as they did about their intentions to conduct this trial. More research groups need to do this both inside and outside the realms of CFS/ME to make replication easier and allow old farts like me to scrutinise and comment from on high. Relying solely on the cold, objective science in this often contentious area, I can also see the rationale behind their running this trial and the urgent need to improve quality of life for many, many young (and older) people diagnosed with CFS/ME.

But... as things stand with the protocol, particularly the distinct lack of using widely available objective measures to provide data on activity levels, I can't also see how this study is going to significantly add to the existing research base nor wider discussions about the use of something like CBT in the context of CFS/ME. I say that also acknowledging that the original FITNET trial is not without criticism [7], including a section that was titled 'The Actometer Results' that perhaps should be renamed 'What happened to the Actometer Results' given "the results were not reported and the reason for this was not given." One also needs look at the masses of discussions on the PACE trial (see here for example) that included CBT as part of an intervention package, to see how the biopsychosocial (BPS) model on which such research rest is, at best, disliked by many suffering with CFS/ME (see here). Said discussions now even reaching the House of elected officials here in Blighty (see here). The glaring lack of any biochemical measures also accompanying this new study adds to the feeling that despite recognition from the authors that "common symptoms in children and young people are unrefreshing sleep, problems with memory and concentration, headaches, nausea (feeling sick), dizziness, muscle and joint pain, and sore throats" psychosomatic ideas still prevail regarding the nature of such symptoms and the continuing rationale for studying CBT in the context of CFS/ME.

I'll hopefully come back to this topic as and when any study results are forthcoming ("Overall trial end date 30/10/2021").

----------

[1] Baos S. et al. Investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) compared to Activity Management to treat paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME): protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018; 19: 136.

[2] Nijhof SL. et al. Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (FITNET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012 Apr 14;379(9824):1412-8.

[3] Geraghty K. et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients' reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys. J Health Psychol. 2017 Aug 1:1359105317726152.

[4] McManimen SL. & Jason LA. Differences in ME and CFS Symptomology in Patients with Normal and Abnormal Exercise Test Results. International journal of neurology and neurotherapy. 2017; 4(1): 066.

[5] Nijs J. et al. Unravelling the nature of postexertional malaise in myalgic encephalomyelitis⁄chronic fatigue syndrome: the role of elastase, complement C4a and interleukin-1b. J Intern Med. 2010 Apr;267(4):418-35.

[6] Schakel L. et al. The effects of a psychological intervention directed at optimizing immune function: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017 May 26;18(1):243.

[7] Ghatineh S. & Vink M. FITNET's Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Is Ineffective and May Impede Natural Recovery in Adolescents with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. A Review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Aug 11;7(3). pii: E52.

----------

"a heightened co-occurrence rate of ASD [autism spectrum disorder] and GD [gender dysphoria]"

Gender dysphoria "where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity" is something that has seemingly risen in research popularity in the context of autism (see here).

The findings reported by Janssen Aron and colleagues [1] (open-access available here) add to the body of research in this area where "endorsement of sex item 110, “wish to be opposite sex,” is 7.76 times more likely among participants with an ASD [autism spectrum disorder] diagnosis than in a nonreferred comparison group." 'Sex item 110' refers to a question item on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) by the way.

Drawing on data derived from almost 500 participants diagnosed with an ASD and some 1600 responses to the CBCL from a 'normative sample', researchers inquired about possible gender variance. Importantly: "In the present study, all CBCL charts had been filled out by the patients' parents" so we need to bear in mind this was a study of proxy reporting albeit from those who probably know the participant pretty well. Researchers observed that some 5% of the ASD cohort "endorsed sex item 110" compared with about half a percent of the control group. Biological gender discussed in terms of 'natal gender' did not suggest that any one gender were more or less likely to endorse that CBCL question and age of participants similarly showed little impact on the endorsement of the questionnaire item.

The authors caution that response to one item on the CBCL does not a gender dysphoria diagnosis make. But they do suggest that further screening could be preferentially offered as and when either autism is diagnosed or indeed screening for autism/autistic traits when gender variance is encountered in the clinic minus any sweeping generalisations. One might also see a need for designing new questionnaires/schedules to specifically ascertain signs of gender dysphoria in cases of autism - indeed, as some have [2] - with a focus on both longitudinal research i.e. how might signs and symptoms change with age/maturation and also taking into account more direct reporting from participants themselves...

----------

[1] Janssen A. et al. Gender Variance Among Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Retrospective Chart Review. Transgend Health. 2016 Feb 1;1(1):63-68.

[2] George R. & Stokes MA. Gender identity and sexual orientation in autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2017. Sept 15.

----------

What nearly 1500 patients with ME/CFS actually think about CBT, GET and pacing therapy

Today I'm discussing the findings reported by Keith Geraghty and colleagues [1] (open-access might be available here).

Looking at some interesting data derived from a rather large patient survey, authors examined what people diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) actually thought about / experienced when it came to three intervention options: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), graded exercise therapy (GET) and pacing therapy (PT). A little bit of context about these interventions can be seen here including reference to some other peer-reviewed published work from members of this authorship group.

Based on the results of a survey offered by one of the premier UK organisations devoted to ME/CFS - certainly the one I tend to use when it comes to defining the spectrum that is ME/CFS - Geraghty et al add something to a body of research looking at the 'real world' impact (or not) of the various interventions currently advised for 'treating' CFS/ME (at least here in the UK). Their analyses suggested that: "While a small percentage of patients report some benefit from either CBT or GET, the majority experience no benefit." Even worse: "GET brings about a substantive deterioration in symptoms for almost half of patients"; something important to mention in the context of other, similar, intervention results being published earlier this year (see here).

At this point, I'll also refer you to other discussions of the Geraghty paper (see here).

Details are important to the Geraghty results. Including quite a sizeable cohort (N=1428) and asking over 200 questions "regarding treatment, particularly CBT, GET or PT", results were also compared against other patient survey results in the context of the intervention(s) being scrutinised. The combined results painted a similar sort of picture when it comes to experiences of the interventions insofar as "CBT brought about improvement in symptoms for approximately 35 per cent of respondents (65% unchanged/worse)" and "25 per cent of GET reported improvement in symptoms (17% unchanged/54% worse)." All this needs to be read in the context of the primary medical tenet: first, do not harm.

Geraghty et al acknowledge that there are limitations to their study results; not least that recall bias might be a potentially important issue and also that delivery of said interventions  might not have been carried out in "a uniform manner" (something also mentioned in the paper by Collin & Crawley [2]). With all due respect to the respondents, I might also add that independent confirmation of their diagnosis - knowing how important this - might also have provided some further methodological strength to the results too.

But in the context that patient surveys "offer a valuable insight into the ‘patient experience’" and how controversial some (all?) of these intervention options have been/continue to be in relation to CFS/ME (see here), these latest results represent an important research voice. They suggest yet again, that blanket recommendations for treating CFS/ME may have lots of potential effects (some positive but also quite a few negative) for many, many people diagnosed with such debilitating conditions. And once again, in the words of Jonathan Edwards [3] "If they [those diagnosed with ME/CFS] are still ill, presumably these approaches have failed and the priority is to find something more effective." Indeed (but don't hold your breath at least here in Blighty).

----------

[1] Geraghty K. et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients' reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys. J Health Psychol. 2017 Aug 1:1359105317726152.

[2] Collin SM. & Crawley E. Specialist treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME: a cohort study among adult patients in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jul 14;17(1):488.

[3] Edwards J. PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science. J Health Psychol. 2017 Aug;22(9):1155-1158.

----------

Diagnosing ME/CFS the machine learning way?

In today's post I want to draw your attention to the findings reported by Diana Ohanian and colleagues [1] (open-access available here) talking about "the use of machine learning to further explore the unique nature"of various conditions/labels including those typically headed under the label of chronic fatigue syndrome / myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

Including one 'Jason LA' on the authorship list, researchers set about looking at "what key symptoms differentiate Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue syndrome (CFS) from Multiple Sclerosis (MS)."You may be wondering why such a comparative study was undertaken but a quick trawl of the research literature reveals that these different clinical labels may well have some important commonalities [2].

This was an internet-based research project whereby "106 people with MS and 354 people with ME or CFS fully completed the [DePaul Symptom Questionnaire] questionnaire" and based on the responses received "decision trees were used to determine what symptoms differentiated those with MS from those with ME or CFS." Decision trees, as the name suggests, is a statistical technique where binary (0 or 1, no or yes) choices make branches and: "At each branch the computer decides what symptom would best predict classifications, in this case whether someone has MS or ME or CFS." This process continues and continues through the different levels of branches "until the tree reaches a balance between classification accuracy and generalizing to new data." Such a machine learning tool has been previously discussed quite recently on this blog (see here).

Results: "Five symptoms best differentiated the groups." These were: flu-like symptoms, tender lymph nodes, alcohol intolerance, inability to tolerate upright position and next day soreness after strenuous activity. The first two symptoms - flu-like symptoms and tender lymph nodes - were pretty good by themselves at correctly categorising MS or CFS/ME (~80% correct). Indeed, these seemed to be the core differentiators that were examined and as the authors note: "The most important two symptoms that differentiated MS versus ME or CFS existed within the immune domain."

Of course further investigations are warranted to potentially build on these findings. One has however to be slightly cautious about the use of the internet and social media when undertaking such research, especially when very little information about the formal diagnoses of participants is included in the current paper. This is a particular issue when it comes to CFS/ME and the various ways that it can be defined and diagnosed [3].

Still, I can't quibble with the continued rise and rise of machine learning being applied to many areas of medicine, and not before time that it starts to reach ME/CFS. And just before I go, it appears that the research team at DePaul University have been quite busy...

To close, on what retiring Presidents of the USA should do next. I think I would go with George Washington and his whisky business... 🍻

----------

[1] Ohanian D. et al. Identifying Key Symptoms Differentiating Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology (ECronicon). 2016;4(2):41-45.

[2] Morris G. & Maes M. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and encephalomyelitis disseminata/multiple sclerosis show remarkable levels of similarity in phenomenology and neuroimmune characteristics. BMC Medicine. 2013; 11: 205.

[3] Jason LA. et al. Case definitions integrating empiric and consensus perspectives. Fatigue. 2016;4(1):1-23.

----------

Ohanian D, Brown A, Sunnquist M, Furst J, Nicholson L, Klebek L, & Jason LA (2016). Identifying Key Symptoms Differentiating Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology (E-Cronicon), 4 (2), 41-45 PMID: 28066845