Global creep of DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder

Post #303 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Qq

Update at April 14, 2014:

Written response (April 10, 2014) from Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) to request for clarification regarding the term ‘Somatic symptom disorder’ and Australia’s clinical modification of ICD-10, ICD-10-AM:

PDF: IHPA response re SSD and ICD-10-AM


 

As previously posted:

In the previous posting Update on proposal to add DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM I reported that NCHS is preparing to rubber stamp proposals to insert Somatic symptom disorder into the U.S.’s forthcoming clinical modification of ICD-10.

Comments/objections to Diagnosis Agenda proposals submitted at the March meeting need to be sent by email to NCHS at nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov by June 20th.

1] According to this Australian legislative document:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00304

Australian Government, Statement of Principles concerning somatic symptom disorder No. 24 of 2014

for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004

“Somatic symptom disorder attracts ICD-10-AM code F45.1.”

For the purposes of the Statement of Principles:

“ICD-10-AM code” means a number assigned to a particular kind of injury or disease in The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM), Eighth Edition, effective date of 1 July 2013, copyrighted by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, and having ISBN 978-1-74128-213-9;”

The Australian ICD-10-CM, Eighth Edition, July 2013 is not in the public domain. As I do not have access to a copy, I have contacted the relevant body for clarifications.

I have asked whether Somatic symptom disorder has been added to the Eighth Edition of ICD-10-AM as an Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder in the Tabular List and Alphabetical Index.

Or, whether this legislative document relies on the ICD cross-walk codes as published in the DSM-5 in May 2013 for the cross-walk between DSM-5 disorders and the disorders in the U.S.’s ICD-9-CM and forthcoming ICD-10-CM.

Or, whether the legislative document relies on a cross-walk between DSM-5 disorders and ICD-10-AM codes developed specifically in relation to the ICD-10-AM Eighth Edition, July 2013.

I will update this post when I have received clarification.

According to this page: http://nccc.uow.edu.au/icd10am-achi-acs/overview/icd10am/index.html

“[Australia's] ICD-10-AM has also enjoyed more widespread use, having been assessed, found suitable and adopted by many other countries, including: New Zealand, Ireland, Singapore, Slovenia.”

I am unable to confirm how many countries that have adopted ICD-10-AM have migrated from earlier editions to the July 2013 edition or are preparing to migrate to the most recent edition.

Other clinical modifications (CMs) of ICD-10:

Canada (ICD-10-CA): The most recent edition of ICD-10-CA is the 2009 edition Volume One: Tabular List 2009. Canada is anticipated to adopt a CM of ICD-11 before the U.S. does, but in meantime, an updated edition of ICD-10-CA might be anticipated, especially given the recent extension to the ICD-11 development timeline. Canadians will need to be alert to the potential for addition of SSD as an inclusion term to the next edition of ICD-10-CA.

Germany (ICD-10-GM): There is an ICD-10-GM version for 2014. There is no SSD under F45.x or under any other code, but watch for any updated versions released prior to transition to a CM of ICD-11.

Thailand (ICD-10-TM): There does not appear to be a more recent version of the Thai clinical modification than the online version for 2007, but watch for SSD in any updated versions prior to potential transition to a CM of ICD-11. ICD-10-TM Online version for 2007.

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform:

There is no documentary evidence of a proposal to add SSD, per se, to ICD-11. However, the wording for the Definition for Bodily distress disorder, as it currently stands in the Beta drafting platform, is drawn from the Gureje, Creed 2012 paper on the S3DWG sub working group’s emerging proposals for ICD-11 [1].

The paper described a simplified disorder framework – a construct into which DSM-5′s Somatic Symptom Disorder could be comfortably integrated, thus facilitating harmonization between the respective ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder construct and criteria replacements for the Somatoform disorders classifications.

As with DSM-5′s SSD, for the emerging proposals for BDD, the focus was not on symptoms counts, or on strict symptom patterns or clusters from one or more body systems, or on whether symptoms were determined as being “medically explained” or “medically unexplained,” but on the perception of disproportionate or maladaptive psychobehavioural responses to, or excessive preoccupation with any troublesome chronic bodily symptom(s). And that in doing away with the “unreliable assumption of its causality” the diagnosis of BDD would not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition – which is very close to SSD’s defining characteristics.

1. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Abstract. Full text behind paywall]

2] On the Patient.co.uk site, a peer reviewed article on Somatic symptom disorder:

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/somatic-symptom-disorder

This article is not a recommendation and it draws heavily on the DSM-IV and current ICD-10 Somatoform disorders framework, criteria and literature. Though it does highlight that DSM-5 has a new, simplified framework and reformulated criteria that rely less on strict patterns of somatic symptoms and more on the degree to which a patient’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours about their symptoms are considered disproportionate or excessive; that for DSM-5, “medically unexplained” is de-emphasized – symptoms may or may not be associated with another medical condition and patients with organic comorbidities such as heart disease, osteoarthritis or cancer, who would have previously been excluded under DSM-IV, can now be included in the diagnosis of SSD.

There is little published research examining the reliability, utility, epidemiology, clinical characteristics or treatment of Somatic symptom disorder as a diagnostic construct and none of the article’s references are for papers specifically using the new Somatic symptom disorder criteria.

3] Somatic symptom disorder in a BMJ Rapid Response:

Rapid Response to: Clinical Review, Fibromyalgia by Anisur Rahman, Martin Underwood, Dawn Carnes [Full text for Clinical Review behind paywall]

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1224/rr/689294

Rapid Response: Fibromyalgia: an unhelpful diagnosis for both patients and doctors [Full text for Rapid Response accessible]

Christopher Bass, consultant in liaison psychiatry, John Radcliffe Hospital , Oxford OX3 9DU

Dr Max Henderson, senior lecturer in Epidemiology and Occupational psychiatry, Inststitute of psychiatry, Kings College London 

According to the authors, fibromyalgia ( coded in ICD-10 under Chapter XXIII Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, at M79.7 ) is more appropriately described in terms of “polysymptomatic distress”; “polysymptomatic distress has been recognised as a somatoform disorder, specifically as a somatic symptom disorder or SSD,” and that since “FM overlaps with other disorders with medically unexplained symptoms such as irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome” it is more appropriate to treat them with multidisciplinary teams within the same specialised service in the general hospital.

4] This commentary by infectious disease specialist, Judy Stone, MD, at Scientific American blogs, mentions concerns around SSD:

Have Pain? Are You Crazy? Rare Diseases Pt. 2

By Judy Stone | February 18, 2014

“It’s all in your head,” patients with unexplained pain or unexpected symptoms often hear…

5] Halifax Somatic Symptoms Disorder Trial

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02076867

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02076867

Sponsor: Capital District Health Authority, Canada

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP) plus Medical Care As Usual (MCAU) compared to MCAU for Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders (SSRD). Consenting patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected SSRD will be randomly allocated to receive either 8 weekly individual sessions of ISTDP or to an 8-week wait list followed by ISTDP. MCAU including emergency department and/or family doctor consultation is available throughout trial participation. The primary outcome measure is participant self-reported somatic symptoms at week 8.

 

Update on proposal to add DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM

Post #302 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3PE

Update at April 5, 2014: Implementation of the U.S.’s forthcoming adaptation of ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, has been kicked further down the road to October 1, 2015. Bill H.R. 4302, known as the PAM Act (Protecting Access to Medicare Act) was signed by President Obama on April 1, 2014. This means that the U.S. won’t now transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM for another year. CMS has yet to issue a statement or update its webpages.

Update at April 5, 2014: The Summary of the March 19–20, 2014 meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting has now been posted

Lots of “outrage” over SSD and DSM-5 but I see little evidence of sustained “outrage” over proposals to add SSD as an Inclusion term to the U.S.’s ICD-10-CM.

If NCHS rubber stamps the addition of Somatic Symptom Disorder to ICD-10-CM it could leverage the future replacement of the existing Somatoform disorders categories with this new, poorly validated single SSD diagnostic construct, bringing ICD-10-CM in line with DSM-5.

There are implications for ICD-11, too.

Once SSD is inserted into ICD-10-CM, the presence of this term within the U.S. adaptation of ICD-10 may make it easier for ICD-11 Revision Steering Group to justify proposals to replace the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories with a single, new ICD construct contrived to incorporate SSD-like characteristics and facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder terms and diagnostic criteria.

+++
This post updates on proposals at the March meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee to add DSM-5′s controversial new Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM.

But first, a necessary recap of the September meeting:

ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meetings provide a public forum to discuss proposed changes to the U.S.’s forthcoming ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS, scheduled for implementation on October 1, 2014.

The meetings, which are co-chaired by representatives for CMS and NCHS, take place, in public, in March and September, followed by public comment periods.

The fall meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee was held on September 18–19, 2013.

On Day Two of the September meeting, American Psychiatric Association’s Darrel Regier, MD, had proposed six new DSM-5 disorders for inclusion in ICD-10-CM.

On Page 45 and 46 of the Diagnosis Agenda, under Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM, a number of other changes to specific Chapter 5 F codes had also been proposed. These were introduced en masse, by CDC’s Donna Picket. (Reached on Day Two, at 1:22:21 in from the start of Videocast Four.)

This section of the Diagnosis Agenda included the proposals to add the new DSM-5 disorders: Somatic symptom disorder (proposed to Add as Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder) and Illness anxiety disorder (proposed to Add as Inclusion term to F45.21 Hypochondriasis) to ICD-10-CM’s Chapter 5 codes.

(F45.1 and F45.21 are the ICD-10-CM codes to which these two new APA disorders are already cross-walked in the DSM-5.)

ICD10CM 4

Source: Page 45, Diagnosis Agenda (Topic Packet), September 18–19, 2013 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting

+++
Videocasts of the entire September 2013 meeting proceedings, Diagnosis Agenda (Topic Packet), Procedural Agenda, Meeting materials etc can be found in Dx Revision Watch Post #277.

Note: there was no proposal at the September 2013 meeting to create a unique code for either Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) or Illness anxiety disorder, for either 2014 or October 1, 2015 implementation, and no proposal that Somatic symptom disorder should replace or subsume any of the existing ICD-10-CM F45.x Somatoform disorders. Note also, these proposals are specific to the forthcoming U.S. clinical modification of ICD-10.

In relation to the section of the Agenda on Pages 45 and 46, CDC’s, Donna Picket, had stated:

1:22:21 in: Diagnosis Agenda: “Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM”
Donna Pickett (CDC): “…And just to complete the package, there are other Tabular List proposals that appear on Page 45 and 46 that we would also invite your comments on. And again, with some of the terminology changes that Dr Regier has described the intent here is to make sure that if those terms are being used, that they do have a home somewhere within ICD-10-CM to facilitate people looking these up. So we invite comments. We’re showing the Tabular List proposed changes; however, there obviously would be associated Alphabetic Index changes with that which we didn’t show just to keep the package a little bit smaller…”
Source: [Unofficial transcription from Video Four, September 2013 ICD-9-CM C & M Committee meeting.]

There were no questions or comments from the floor or by phone link on any of the proposals listed on Pages 45 and 46 under “Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM” and no discussion or queries on any of the individual proposals listed under under this section of the Agenda between the meeting co-chairs and APA’s, Dr Regier.

NCHS’s decision on proposals to add Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and Illness anxiety disorder as Inclusion terms to ICD-10-CM Tabular List Chapter 5, and to also add to the Index, isn’t known and may not be evident until the next ICD-10-CM Addenda is released, later this year, or the Final Addenda released.

Some of the objections submitted to the proposal to add Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) as an Inclusion term in ICD-10-CM are collated on Dx Revision Watch here.

+++

March meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee

This meeting took place on March 19–20, 2014. I was unable to attend as I live in the UK.

The ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM Timeline and Diagnosis and Procedure Codes Agenda (Topic Packet) can be found here, on the CDC website:

Proposals (Topic Packet) March 19-20, 2014

Procedure Agenda, Meeting Materials and Handouts can be downloaded from Zip files here, on the CMS website:

Meeting Materials March 19-20, 2014

A Summary Report of the Diagnosis part of the meeting is scheduled to be posted on the NCHS website, in June.

A Summary Report of the Procedure part of the meeting is scheduled to be posted on the CMS website, in June.

April 17, 2014: Deadline for receipt of public comments on proposed procedure code revisions discussed at the March 19, 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting for implementation on October 1, 2014.

June 20, 2014: Deadline for receipt of public comments on proposed code revisions discussed at the March 19–20 meeting for implementation on October 1, 2015.

ICD-10-CM is currently subject to a partial code freeze. During the freeze, the public will be asked to comment on whether or not a proposal should be approved, and if not, why; and whether requests for new diagnosis or procedure codes should be created based on the criteria of the need to capture a new technology or disease. Any code requests that do not meet the criteria will be evaluated for implementation within ICD-10-CM on and after October 1, 2015 once the partial freeze has ended.

Comments on the diagnosis proposals presented at the ICD Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting should be sent, preferably by email, to the following address by June 20th deadline: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

+++

The Two Day proceedings were streamed live and can be watched on YouTube:

Video One: Day One: Morning Session: Procedural Codes: 2014 Mar 19th, FY 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee

+++
Video Two: Day One: Afternoon Session: Procedural Codes: 2014 Mar 19th, FY 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee

+++
Video Three: Day Two: Diagnosis Codes: 2014 Mar 20th, FY 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee

+++
Page 64, Topic Packet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Topic_packet_3_19_2014.pdf

[Extract]

Chapter 5 Addenda

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) proposes the following addenda changes to the ICD-10-CM Tabular and Index, specifically to Chapter 5, Mental, Behavioral and Neurodevelopmental disorders (F01-F99).

The APA indicates that these revisions are necessary because DSM-5 contains several new diagnoses, as well as new disorder titles, that do not map well to any existing ICD-10-CM codes.

Because of this, they are proposing numerous new index entries and tabular inclusion terms to ensure that coders can correctly identify the codes to use. The APA proposes that these changes will also ensure that new DSM-5 disorder titles correspond to a valid ICD-10-CM code.

Many of the changes in the proposed addenda relate to the reconceptualization of the substance use disorders from having separate disorder names and codes for substance abuse and dependence. However, extensive scientific evidence was assembled to show that, rather than existing as two separate disorders, these conditions exist on a spectrum that the APA has now conceptualized as ranging from mild to moderate to severe. In order to make the closest approximations with existing ICD-10-CM codes, it is noted that codes for mild substance use disorders correspond to the abuse codes and codes for moderate and severe substance use disorders correspond to dependence codes. The APA may recommend changes in the structure and names of ICD-10-CM substance related disorders, in the future, however at the present time they are only recommending the addition of the new terminology as inclusion terms.

The following addenda are proposed for implementation on October 1, 2015

[...]

1:12:12 in from start of YouTube Three: Chapter 5 Addenda Proposed Tabular Modifications.

1:12:12 Beth Fisher (CMS): Introduces proposals for [Tabular] modifications from APA for Chapter 5. These are all Addenda type changes because [ICD-10-CM is] in code freeze mode, we didn’t have the opportunity to do new codes just yet. Hands podium to Darrel Regier, MD.

1:13:01 Darrel Regier (APA): Mapping DSM-5 to ICD-10-CM codes; Major change to rename Dementias group to Major Neurocognitive Disorders, because including in this group some neurocognitive deficit conditions such as Traumatic brain injury and other neurocognitive disorders that are not inherently some of the neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Picks Disease. (Page 64 Diagnosis Agenda)

1:14:02 Darrel Regier (APA): We’ve also introduced [in DSM-5] a Mild neurocognitive disorder that reflects the Mild cognitive impairment, MCI, that is currently in ICD-9, ICD-10…

1:15:06 Darrel Regier (APA): A lot of significant changes to substance abuse disorder area which will require some notes and guidelines…

1:15:27 Darrel Regier (APA): [APA has] a number of new disorders…15 new disorders that are in the DSM-5, but there were 50 disorders that were actually subsumed into a spectrum of conditions that dropped the total number of disorders by something like 28; so you had 50 disorders that collapsed into 22 disorders. Among those, some of the most prominent – Aspergers, Autism, Pervasive developmental disorder NOS, into a single Autism spectrum disorder…assessed on two domains…assessed in terms of level of severity instead of categorical distinctions…

1:17:04 Darrel Regier (APA): Eliminating distinction between abuse and dependence so that on a continuum of Mild, Moderate, Severe…no strict separation between abuse category and dependence…

1:21:00: Question from floor re Alcohol abuse, Alcohol dependence.

1:31:15 Beth Fisher (CDC): Some of these Inclusion terms may have been proposed at September 2013 meeting. (But does not explain the reason for their being resubmitted at the March meeting.)

1:31:34 Beth Fisher (CDC): Begins running through all Addenda Additions.

1:31:42 Beth Fisher (CDC): At F44 Dissociative and conversion disorders, Add Conversion disorder, in parenthesis, functional neurological symptom disorder as Inclusion term.

March 2014 C and M meeting Conversion disorder (FNSD)

Source: ICD-10-CM C & M Committee meeting, March 20, 2014, Screenshot Video Three

Note, there was no proposal under these Proposed Tabular Modifications to Add Somatic symptom disorder as Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder to the Tabular List. But the proposal to Add Somatic symptom disorder as an Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder to the Tabular List and to the Alphabetical Index had been proposed at the September 2013 meeting.

Also, no proposal to Add Illness anxiety disorder to the Tabular List, but again, this had been proposed at the September 2013 meeting (under F45.21), for both the Tabular List and the Index. (Decisions on all four of these September 2013 meeting proposals are unknown.)

1:34:06 Beth Fisher (CMS): Concludes proposed Addenda Additions to Chapter 5 Tabular List.

1:34:12 Beth Fisher (CMS) Moves onto Proposed Index Modifications from Page 82, Topic Packet.

1:42:36 Beth Fisher (CMS) Page 89: [Under main Index term "Disorder"] And then Somatic symptom disorder to F45.1.

Page 89, Diagnosis Agenda Add Somatic symptom disorder

March14 ICD-10-CM Cand M SSD to Index

Source: ICD-10-CM C & M Committee meeting, March 20, 2014, Screenshot Video Three

(No comments from floor regarding proposal to Add SSD to Index, or queries in respect of outcome of September meeting proposals. It was not feasible for me to participate in this meeting via phone link from UK to query.)

Note, there was no proposal under Proposed Index Modifications to add Illness anxiety disorder to the Index, but this proposal had been included in the September 2013 Topic Packet. Why SSD has been resubmitted for consideration for addition ro the Index at the March 2014 meeting is unclear, and as I say, the outcome of proposals for the September meeting for both SSD and IAD to be added to both Tabular List and to Index is unknown.

1:44:25 Beth Fisher (CMS): Concludes proposed Addenda Additions to Chapter 5 Alphabetical Index. Invites comments.

1:44:26: Questions from floor regarding Alcohol; Cannabis; Cocaine use; Implications for legal differences between states for use of cannabis. Question regarding Neurodegeneration due to alcohol.

1:50.02 Beth Fisher (CMS): Other Addenda (Ed: presumably Tab and Index Addenda on pp 91–93 and 93–97) were reached on Day One, as there was time, so not being presenting on Day Two. Invites further comments.

1:50.27 Donna Picket (CDC): Adjourns meeting. Reminds floor (and participants via phone link/videocasts and non attendees), to submit comments on Diagnosis proposals by June 20 deadline.

1:51:07 Question from floor: Process question: if these proposals are all approved, when will they be approved and when will they be effective, because we want to notify our members of what codes to use?

1:51:32: Donna Pickett (CDC): All of these being presented were for consideration for implementation in October 1, 2015. Within 2015, we have a huge body of work that has been accumulating during partial code freeze and we’ve encouraged comments to come in about the timing for making the Final Addenda available. The typical time frame we have used in the past is posting [Addenda] in June and proposals to become effective October 1, of that same year. However, issues have arisen because there is a huge body of work and it was mentioned, yesterday, [during Meeting Day One] that the industry may want to have an Addenda released earlier and we invited comment on that, because of the amount of work that would need to go into incorporating the changes into the relevant systems and programs etc. If we were to stay with the traditional process, the Addenda would be made available in June. Meeting concluded.

Comments on the diagnosis proposals presented at the ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting should be sent, preferably by email, to the following address by June 20th deadline: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

Clarification: Coalition for Diagnostic Rights

A website called Coalition for Diagnostic Rights has recently been launched.
The site includes references to Suzy Chapman and to Dx Revision Watch.
Suzy Chapman/Dx Revision Watch is not associated with or affiliated to the Coalition for Diagnostic Rights website or with any organization associated with that site, and has no responsibility for content published on that site, or published in the name of that site on other platforms.
Suzy Chapman
Dx Revision Watch

Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders: WHO ICD-11 Symposium IV, WPA XVI World Congress, Madrid

Post #299 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Oe

Update at March 16, 2014: I am advised that Justice For Karina Hansen on Facebook has added a note of correction to its Facebook post.

BDD 240214

Image source: Chapter 06: Bodily distress disorder > Somatization disorder, ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at March 17, 2014

I am still seeing considerable confusion, misunderstanding and misreporting around what can and what cannot be determined from the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform on emerging proposals for revision of ICD-10′s Somatoform disorders.

Two recent examples: a media report (since pulled) and an incorrect statement posted by an admin for the Justice For Karina Hansen Facebook page:

“We are sad to share that bodily distress syndrome has made it one step closer to being part of the ICD. It appeared january 29th on ICD-11 Beta Drafting Platform…”

No. It didn’t.

The term Bodily distress syndrome does not appear in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

The term entered into the Beta draft is Bodily distress disorder.

Bodily distress disorder did not appear in the Beta draft on January 29. It was entered into the draft, two years ago, in February 2012.

January 29 is the date on which I reported that an ICD-11 “Short Definition” had recently been inserted for the (long-standing) entry for a proposed Bodily distress disorder category.

If you have already written about proposals for the revision of the Somatoform disorders in the context of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform or if you are planning to write, please read this post.

If writing about complex classificatory revision processes, I suggest you first familiarize yourself with how the several ICD-11 Beta drafting platform linearizations function and interrelate; that you inform yourself about the proposals of both ICD-11 working groups charged with making recommendations for potential revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders, including obtaining and scrutinizing key journal papers, reports or presentations on emerging proposals published by members of both working groups; and that for comparison, you have an understanding of the existing F45 Somatoform disorders framework and the disorder descriptions and criteria for categories located within this section of ICD-10, in order that you can provide evidenced based, accurate and up to date information and analysis, within the limitations of what information is public domain.

Reiteration of misinformation and inaccurate reporting on blogs, websites and social media platforms helps no-one. It delegitimizes patient and carer concerns; it undermines the work of advocates committed to providing accurate, referenced and timely information; it panics patients and provokes knee jerk “activism” and “slacktivism.”

And if you are shrugging and thinking Ho, hum, the (undefined) term, Bodily distress disorder and Fink et al’s (operationalized) Bodily Distress Syndrome are sometimes used interchangeably outside of ICD-11, so… ICD-11′s proposed flavour of BDD must mean that a similar disorder model to Fink’s BDS is intended in the Beta draft, read on…

Please note that it is not within the scope of this post to review or discuss the implications for retaining the ICD-10 status quo for ICD-11, or for adopting SSD-like or BDS-like constructs (or any variations on all three) – but to set out what can and what cannot safely be determined from the Beta draft and associated literature.

+++
Key points for this report:

• In September, Oye Gureje, who chairs the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders, will be presenting on “Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders” as part of a series of ICD-11 Symposia at the World Psychiatric Association’s XVI World Congress, in Madrid.

• There are two working groups advising ICD-11 on the revision of ICD-10′s Somatoform disorders

The Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG);

The ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG).

• In 2012, the PCCG published a paper proposing a new disorder construct to replace ICD-10-PHC’s F45 “Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms” which the group proposed to call Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) [1]. 

F48 Neurasthenia was also proposed to be eliminated for the ICD-11-PHC.

• In 2012, the PCCG’s Bodily stress syndrome category was proposed to sit under a new Mental and behavioural disorder grouping called Body distress disorders, under which were grouped three other, unrelated disorders, like so:

Extract: Goldberg DP. Comparison Between ICD and DSM Diagnostic Systems for Mental Disorders. In: Sorel E, (Ed.) 21st Century Global Mental Health. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012: 37-53 [Free PDF, Sample Chapter Two] [2]

Page 51, Table 2.5 The 28 Disorders Proposed for ICD11-PHC (the abridged Primary Care version of ICD-11)

Body distress disorders

15 Bodily stress syndrome [Replaces F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms]
16 Acute stress reaction
17 Dissociative disorder
18 Self-harm

[F48 Neurasthenia proposed to be eliminated for ICD11-PHC]

So the PCCG group were proposing the use of a new term, Body [sic] distress disorders, as a disorder group name for a number of unrelated ICD-11-PHC primary care disorders, whilst proposing the term Bodily stress syndrome as a new ICD-11-PHC disorder category listed under that group.

[Leaving aside the issue of the current lack of evidence for the validity, reliability and utility of the BSS construct, this presents providers, payers, coders and patients with potentially confusing terminology. Given there is already an operationalized definition and criteria for Bodily Distress Syndrome, WHO classification experts should have qualms about the potential for confusion between disorder group names and disorder category names, and between proposed disorder names that sound similar to, but which may lack conceptual congruency with similarly named disorders for which definitions and criteria have already been published and which are already in limited use in research and clinical settings.]

• In 2012, the PCCG’s tentative new BSS disorder drew heavily on Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome’s (BDS) construct and criteria. Based on physical symptom clusters or patterns from various body systems and (theoretically) on the autonomic arousal or “over-arousal” illness model.

Though not explicit, BSS appeared to have the capacity for capturing the so-called functional somatic syndromes; and in common with BDS, if the symptoms “were better accounted for by a known physical disease this is not BSS.”

But the tentative BSS criteria also featured some DSM-5 SSD-like psychobehavioural characteristics, which do not form part of Fink et al’s BDS criteria. There were other, minor criteria discrepancies between BSS and BDS.

• In 2012, the second working group, the S3DWG, also published a paper presenting a new disorder construct which they proposed to call Bodily distress disorder (BDD) [3]. Again, a similar term to one already in use.

The S3DWG group proposed to subsume all of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories of F45.0 – F45.9, plus F48.0 Neurasthenia, under a new, single BDD disorder category, with a number of severity specifiers (initially, Mild, Moderate and Severe).

• But the S3DWG’s emerging BDD construct was quite different to the PCCG group’s BSS. It was characterized by a simplified criteria set based on excessive preoccupation and psychobehavioural responses to single or multiple, non specific bodily symptoms. The BDD construct shared characteristics with DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) – not with Fink et al’s BDS.

• In common with DSM-5′s SSD, the BDD diagnosis eliminated the “unreliable assumption of causality” and did not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition. BDD, as described in the 2012 Gureje, Creed paper, and Fink et al’s BDS are divergent constructs.

• So by late 2012, there were two sets of recommendations – BSS, drawing heavily on Fink’s BDS model, but with a nod towards DSM-5′s SSD, and BDD – with notable similarity to DSM-5′s SSD.

• In early 2012, the disorder name entered into the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform was Bodily distress disorder, (not Bodily stress syndrome or Bodily Distress Syndrome). No Definition for BDD was added at the time.

• In early 2014, a Definition for Bodily distress disorder was inserted into the Beta drafting platform. The Definition wording was drawn from the Gureje, Creed (S3DWG) 2012 BDD paper, which had described an SSD-like disorder construct.

• There is currently insufficient evidence in the Beta drafting platform to assert that, in the context of ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, BDD is being defined as a BDS-like construct. The defining BDD characteristics: 

high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms;
unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking;
avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body;

are psychological and behavioural responses. Psychological and behavioural responses are not required for Fink et al’s BDS and these characteristics have greater congruency with DSM-5 SSD’s “B type”criteria. There is no evident requirement for symptom patterns or clusters from one or more body systems, as required to meet BDS criteria; examples of BDD symptoms are non specific and patients may be “preoccupied with any bodily symptoms.”

From the limited content displaying in the Beta draft, it simply isn’t possible to determine that BDD, in the context of ICD-11 Beta draft usage, is being defined as a Fink et al BDS-like disorder construct.

An additional layer of complexity: recently, the BDD severity specifier “Severe bodily distress disorder” has been removed from the draft and ICD-10′s Somatization disorder reinserted. Neurasthenia, previously proposed by both groups to be eliminated or subsumed for ICD-11, has also been inserted back into the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter, which is (currently numbered Chapter 06).

Neurasthenia240214

Image source: Chapter 06: Neurasthenia, ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at March 17, 2014

The Definition assigned to Somatization disorder remains unrevised from legacy text recently imported, unedited, from ICD-10. It is currently unclear how Somatization disorder and Neurasthenia are now intended to integrate within the core ICD-11 and the ICD-11 Primary Care framework, given that a new, single disorder construct had earlier been proposed by both groups to subsume Somatization disorder and all of the ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders categories between F45.0 – F45.9, and to subsume F48.0 Neurasthenia.

No other F45.x categories have been restored to the Beta draft. (There is a reference in the legacy Definition for Somatization disorder to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder but this text has yet to be edited from the text as it had stood under ICD-10′s Somatoform disorders framework.) 

• The development of a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders is a work in progress and proposals may go through several iterations over the next two or three years. The two groups may or may not be striving to reach consensus. The construct favoured by ICD-11 Revision Steering Group may or may not be the construct that is put out for initial field testing.

• Without full disorder descriptions, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc, there is currently insufficient content in the Beta drafting platform to determine the precise nature of whatever construct and criteria is currently favoured by ICD-11 Revision Steering Group; or whether the two groups have reached consensus over a new disorder name and concept; or whether and to what extent the groups’ two (divergent) constructs have been revised since publication of their respective 2012 papers.

Possibly the ICD-11 Symposium IV presentation, later this year, in Madrid, may elucidate. If there is a transcript, summary report or presentation slides of Dr Oye Gureje’s presentation to the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress in September, I will post presentation materials, when available. There are some additional notes below the WPA XVI World Congress details.

+++

The World Psychiatric Association’s XVI World Congress of Psychiatry will be held in Madrid, on September 14–18, 2014.

XVI World Congress of Psychiatry website: http://www.wpamadrid2014.com/

There will be a number of Symposia dedicated to the development of ICD-11

Scientific Programme

Topic 10. Diagnostic Systems (Updated)

Proposals Diagnostic Systems

Extracts:

Page 2:

000464 WHO ICD-11 Symposium I: An overview of the World Health Organization’s development of the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders

000466: WHO ICD-11 Symposium III: Proposals and Evidence for ICD-11 – Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Disruptive Behaviour

000468: WHO ICD-11 Symposium IV: Proposals and Evidence for ICD-11– Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Primary Psychotic Disorders, Mood Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, and Common Mental Disorders in Primary Care

[...]

Speaker: Goldberg, David P., King’s College London – UK

Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders in primary care (ICD-11 PHC)

000469: WHO ICD-11 Symposium V: Proposals and Evidence for ICD-11 – Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Dissociative Disorders

[...]

Speaker: Gureje, Oye, University of Idaban – NG

Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders

Notes:

The ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group:

The 12 member PCCG leads the development and field testing of the revision of all 28 mental and behavioural disorders proposed for inclusion in the next ICD primary care classification (ICD-11-PHC), an abridged version of the core ICD-11 classification. Per Fink’s colleague, Marianne Rosendal, is a member of the PCCG group.

The members of the PCCG are: SWC Chan, AC Dowell, S Fortes, L Gask, D Goldberg (Chair), KS Jacob, M Klinkman (Vice Chair), TP Lam, JK Mbatia, FA Minhas, G Reed, and M Rosendal.

New disorders that survive the primary care field tests must have an equivalent disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

The PCCG’s 2012 paper on emerging proposals for BSS and international focus group responses to these tentative proposals can be accessed for free here:

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.full.pdf+html

+++
The ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders:

The second sub working group advising on the revision of ICD-10′s Somatoform Disorders is the 17 member Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG).

The S3DWG is chaired by Prof Oye Gureje. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) work group member, Prof Francis Creed, is a member of this group. Other than Athula Sumathipala, MD, PhD (UK) and Joan E. Broderick, PhD (Stony Brook University, NY) all other members of this sub working group have yet to be identified. Their names are not listed in the Gureje, Creed 2012 paper [3] and a list of members is not available from the ICD Revision website.

The term entered into the Beta draft is Bodily distress disorder not Bodily stress syndrome or Bodily Distress Syndrome.

Current Definition for Bodily distress disorder, as displaying in the Beta draft at March 16, 2014:

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).

This BDD Definition wording is based – in some places verbatim – on the construct descriptions presented in the Gureje, Creed (S3DWG) “Emerging themes…” paper, published in late 2012 [3]. Unfortunately this journal paper remains behind a paywall but I do have a copy.

Extract, Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012:

“…At the time of preparing this review, a major highlight of the proposals of the S3DWG for the revision of the ICD-10 somatoform disorders is that of subsuming all of the ICD-10 categories of F45.0 – F45.9 and F48.0 under a single category with a new name of ‘bodily distress disorder’ (BDD).

“In the proposal, BDD is defined as ‘A disorder characterized by high levels of preoccupation related to bodily symptoms or fear of having a physical illness with associated distress and impairment. The features include preoccupation with bothersome bodily symptoms and their significance, persistent fears of having or developing a serious illness or unreasonable conviction of having an undetected physical illness, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance.’”

This 2012 paper goes on to say that the S3DWG’s emerging proposals specify a much simplified set of criteria for a diagnosis of Bodily distress disorder (BDD) that requires the presence of:

1. High levels of preoccupation with a persistent and bothersome bodily symptom or symptoms; or unreasonable fear, or conviction, of having an undetected physical illness; plus,

2. The bodily symptom(s) or fears about illness are distressing and are associated with impairment of functioning.

And that in doing away with the “unreliable assumption of its causality” the diagnosis of BDD “does not exclude the presence of depression or anxiety, or of a co-occurring physical health condition.”

This is not a BDS model – it’s a disorder framework into which DSM-5′s “Somatic Symptom Disorder” (SSD) could comfortably be integrated, thus smoothing harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5.

(If you want to compare the extent to which the BDS construct and criteria diverges from DSM-5′s SSD construct and criteria, see my graphic here.)

For the S3DWG’s emerging proposals for BDD, as presented in late 2012, there was no evident requirement for specific symptom counts, or for BDS-like symptom clusters from one or more body systems. Examples of symptoms are non specific and patients may be “preoccupied with any bodily symptoms.”

As with DSM-5′s SSD, the focus was not on the number of symptoms, or on symptom patterns or clusters from one or more body systems, or whether symptoms were determined as “medically explained” or “medically unexplained” or of undetermined aetiology, but on the perception of “disproportionate” and “maladaptive” responses to, or “excessive” preoccupation with any troublesome chronic bodily symptom(s).

So in 2012, the two groups lacked agreement not only over what to call any new, single disorder replacement for ICD-10′s Somatoform disorders, but also on what disorder construct and criteria should be recommended to ICD Revision.

Given that the wording of the Definition for Bodily distress disorder as entered into the draft, in January, is based on text from the Gureje, Creed 2012 paper, which had described an SSD-like construct, one might argue that the disorder name and Definition currently displaying in the draft potentially better describes an SSD-like construct – not Fink et al’s BDS.

And with the recent reintroduction into the Beta drafting platform of Somatization disorder and Neurasthenia, one might further argue that there is perhaps a recent consideration for a construct that doesn’t veer too far away from the status quo, which could be moulded to accommodate selected of the ICD-10 legacy Somatoform disorders categories, but which removes the requirement for symptoms to be “medically unexplained” in order that SSD might be shoehorned into an ICD-11 framework for “harmonization” with DSM-5.

But at the moment and in the absence of documentary evidence or clarification by WHO/ICD Revision, what cannot safely be said is that in the context of ICD-11 usage, Bodily distress disorder equates with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome.

Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: as a work in progress over the next two to three years, it is subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Managing Editors, ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts.

+++
References:

1. Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract Feb 2013 [Epub ahead of print July 2012].
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843638
Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long
PDF: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.full.pdf+html

2. Goldberg DP. Comparison Between ICD and DSM Diagnostic Systems for Mental Disorders. In: Sorel E, (Ed.) 21st Century Global Mental Health. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012: 37-53 [Free PDF, Sample Chapter Two] http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449627874/Chapter2.pdf

3. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Abstract only. Full text behind paywall]

4. ICD-11 Beta drafting platform public version: Bodily distress disorder: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f767044268

Update on ICD-11 Beta drafting platform listing for “Bodily distress disorder”

Post #296 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3M2

This post is an update to Post #291, January 29, 2014, titled:

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: ICD-11 Beta draft: Definition added for “Bodily distress disorder”

Caveat: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: it is a work in progress, subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by Topic Advisory Group Managing Editors, the ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts.

Since the release of the initial iCAT drafting platform, in 2010, the Somatoform disorders section of Chapter 05 has undergone numerous iterations.

In Post #291, I reported on the status of the Beta drafting platform at January 29, when it had stood like this:

BDD at 02.02.14

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, Chapter 05, at January 29, 2014

+++
There has been a further recent change to this section of the drafting platform and the draft currently stands like this:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f767044268

BDD 240214

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, Chapter 05, at February 24, 2014

+++
In the Foundation Component, the severity specifier, Severe bodily distress disorder, has now been removed.

ICD-10′s Somatization disorder has been reinserted as a child category under Bodily distress disorder.

The term Bodily distress disorder is cross referenced to ICD-10 F45 Somatoform disorders.

Somatoform disorders is listed under Synonyms to Bodily distress disorder.

The Definition for Bodily distress disorder remains the same as previously reported:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f767044268

“Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).”

Note: these psychobehavioural responses that characterize the disorder are based on text in the 2012 Creed and Gureje paper on emerging proposals for Bodily distress disorder [1].

That paper also says that in doing away with the “unreliable assumption of its causality” the diagnosis of BDD does not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition – which describes a disorder framework into which DSM-5′s “Somatic Symptom Disorder” (SSD) would be capable of integration, allowing harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5.

The Exclusions listed under Bodily distress disorder are legacy terms imported from ICD-10′s Somatoform disorders section. Hypochondriasis has also been inserted as an Exclusion to Bodily distress disorder.

If you open the description display pane for child category, Somatization disorder:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f967191413

you’ll see that the Definition that has been reinserted is legacy text imported from ICD-10′s F45.0 Somatization disorder.

The Definition includes the text: “Short-lived (less than two years) and less striking symptom patterns should be classified under undifferentiated somatoform disorder (F45.1).”

Note: there is no Undifferentiated somatoform disorder listed in the ICD-11 Beta draft. I cannot confirm whether ICD-11 Revision also intends to reinsert Undifferentiated somatoform disorder to the ICD-11 Beta draft, or whether this represents an oversight on the part of the Beta draft Managing editors to edit the text that has been imported from ICD-10 to accord with ICD-11 proposals.

If you go to the Foundation Component view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

and hover over the blue, red, yellow, green button at the top right of the chapter listings, the hover reads

“show/hide availability in main linearizations”.

Click on the button and coloured tags will display at the beginning of each category term which indicate the availability of that term within the various linearizations.

For example, hovering over the colour tags for Bodily distress disorder  indicates that this Foundation Component term is available in “In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource” linearizations.

Hovering over the recently re-inserted Somatization disorder indicates that this Foundation Component term is available “In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource” linearizations. (On February 18, it was displaying as available only in Foundation, Primary Care High Resource and Primary Care Low Resource.)

+++

Neurasthenia

A further change – Neurasthenia has also been reinserted into the Beta draft!

Neurasthenia had previously been proposed to be eliminated for ICD-11 or subsumed under Bodily distress disorder along with seven Somatoform disorder categories:

Somatization disorder;
Undifferentiated somatoform disorder;
Somatoform autonomic dysfunction;
Persistent somatoform pain disorder;
Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors [not in ICD-10 but had been proposed for ICD-11];
Other somatoform disorders;

Somatoform disorder, unspecified

Neurasthenia has also been proposed to be eliminated from the Primary Care version (ICD-11-PHC), according to the 2012 proposals of the Primary Care Consultation Group, but now its back in the draft and listed for Foundation Component, Primary Care High Resource and Primary Care Low Resource linearizations (but not Mortality and Morbidity).

It is currently listed thus:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1784516726

Neurasthenia240214

The Long Content Model Definition that displays in the disorder description pane is the legacy F48.0 text unmodified from ICD-10.

Fatigue syndrome* is specified as the Inclusion term, as per ICD-10. [If you hover over the asterisk in the draft it displays the hover: "This term is an inclusion term in the linearizations".]

ICD-10 G93.3 category, postviral fatigue syndrome, remains listed as an Exclusion to Neurasthenia, as it does in ICD-10.

+++
So what are the implications?

Without clarifications from ICD Revision it cannot be determined from what displays in the public version of the Beta draft what the current intentions are, or how these revised proposals would accommodate the restoration of Somatization disorder and Neurasthenia within the BDD framework (at least as the BDD framework stood in the 2012 Creed and Gureje emerging proposals paper).

All that can safely be said in relation to this section of the draft is:

that the section parent category remains Bodily distress disorder;

that a child category, Somatization disorder, which was previously one of a handful of SDs proposed to be replaced by a single new BDD category, has now been reinserted for the Foundation Component, Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource and Primary Care Low Resource linearizations, with its Definition text unmodified from ICD-10.

that currently, the Definition text for Somatization disorder is unmodified from ICD-10 and includes an unexplained reference to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder*.

that Severe bodily distress disorder is no longer listed in any linearization, at least in the public version of the Beta drafting platform.

that Neurasthenia, which was previously proposed to be eliminated for both the core and primary care versions, is now back in the Beta draft for Foundation Component, Primary Care High Resource and Primary Care Low Resource linearizations, with its Definition text unmodified from ICD-10.

But I have no clarification of intention or any information on what definition, disorder descriptions and criteria set will be going forward to ICD-11 field tests, and it could all change again, next week…

*In DSM-5, Somatic symptom disorder is cross-walked to ICD-10-CM F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

NCHS/CMS has proposed to insert the term Somatic symptom disorder into ICD-10-CM as an Inclusion to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

References:

Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Full text behind paywall]

New paper by Wolfe et al on reliability and validity of SSD diagnosis in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia

Post #295 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3LP

This post is an update to Post #284, November 17, 2013, titled:

Correspondence In Press in response to Dimsdale et al paper: Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM

In December 2013, Journal of Psychosomatic Research published four letters in response to the Dimsdale el al paper including concerns from Winfried Häuser and Frederick Wolfe for the reliability and validity of DSM-5′s new Somatic symptom disorder:  The somatic symptom disorder in DSM 5 risks mislabelling people with major medical diseases as mentally ill.

A new paper has been published by PLOS One on February 14, 2014:

Symptoms, the Nature of Fibromyalgia, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5) Defined Mental Illness in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia Frederick Wolfe, Brian T. Walitt, Robert S. Katz, Winfried Häuser

The paper is published under Open Access and includes the full SSD criteria in Table S1

The paper’s references include the following commentaries and an article by science writer, Michael Gross:

Frances A, Chapman S (2013) DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 47: 483–484. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484525 [PMID 23653063]

Frances A (2013) The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. BMJ: British Medical Journal 346. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580 [PMID 23511949]

Gross M (2013) Has the manual gone mental? Current biology 23: R295–R298. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.009 Full text

Full paper, Tables and Figures in text or PDF format:

Symptoms, the Nature of Fibromyalgia, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5) Defined Mental Illness in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia Frederick Wolfe, Brian T. Walitt, Robert S. Katz, Winfried Häuser

Text version

PDF version

Abstract

Purpose

To describe and evaluate somatic symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and fibromyalgia, determine the relation between somatization syndromes and fibromyalgia, and evaluate symptom data in light of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) criteria for somatic symptom disorder.

Methods

We administered the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), a measure of somatic symptom severity to 6,233 persons with fibromyalgia, RA, and osteoarthritis. PHQ-15 scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent low, medium, and high somatic symptom severity cut-points. A likely somatization syndrome was diagnosed when PHQ-15 score was ≥10. The intensity of fibromyalgia diagnostic symptoms was measured by the polysymptomatic distress (PSD) scale.

Results

26.4% of RA patients and 88.9% with fibromyalgia had PHQ-15 scores ≥10 compared with 9.3% in the general population. With each step-wise increase in PHQ-15 category, more abnormal mental and physical health status scores were observed. RA patients satisfying fibromyalgia criteria increased from 1.2% in the PHQ-15 low category to 88.9% in the high category. The sensitivity and specificity of PHQ-15≥10 for fibromyalgia diagnosis was 80.9% and 80.0% (correctly classified = 80.3%) compared with 84.3% and 93.7% (correctly classified = 91.7%) for the PSD scale. 51.4% of fibromyalgia patients and 14.8% with RA had fatigue, sleep or cognitive problems that were severe, continuous, and life-disturbing; and almost all fibromyalgia patients had severe impairments of function and quality of life.

Conclusions

All patients with fibromyalgia will satisfy the DSM-5 “A” criterion for distressing somatic symptoms, and most would seem to satisfy DSM-5 “B” criterion because symptom impact is life-disturbing or associated with substantial impairment of function and quality of life. But the “B” designation requires special knowledge that symptoms are “disproportionate” or “excessive,” something that is uncertain and controversial. The reliability and validity of DSM-5 criteria in this population is likely to be low.

 

Final post on Dx Revision Watch

Post #294 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3L2

This will be the final post on Dx Revision Watch.

As from today, I am stepping back from advocacy work and from monitoring and reporting via this site.

Dx Revision Watch will remain online for the foreseeable future as a resource. Other than updating some existing posts, no new postings or reports will be added.

Before using this site or republishing content please read the Disclaimer Notes

Suzy Chapman
Dx Revision Watch

“He that reads and grows no wiser seldom suspects his own deficiency, but complains of hard words and obscure sentences, and asks why books are written which cannot be understood.”  Samuel Johnson

+++

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: