ICD-11 Beta draft: Rationale for Proposal for Deletion of proposed new category: Bodily distress disorder

Post #328 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-4dc

ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism:

https://tinyurl.com/ICD11BDDsubmission

(Registration with the Beta draft required in order to view proposals)

  ICD-11 Bodily distress disorder submission

Proposal submitted by Suzy Chapman, Dx Revision Watch, via ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism

Submitted: March 1, 2017

The author has no affiliations or conflicts of interest to declare.

Rationale for Proposal for Deletion of the Entity: Bodily distress disorder

1: The acronym “BDD” is already in use to indicate Body Dysmorphic Disorder [1].

2: With limited field studies, there is currently no substantial body of evidence for the validity, reliability, utility, prevalence, safety and acceptability of the S3DWG’s proposed disorder construct. However, the focus of this rationale is the proposed nomenclature.

The Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders Working Group (S3DWG) proposes to name its construct, “bodily distress disorder (BDD)” – a term that is already used by researchers and in the field interchangeably with the disorder term, “bodily distress syndrome (BDS).”

“Bodily distress syndrome” is a conceptually divergent disorder construct: differently defined and characterized, with different criteria that are already operationalized in Denmark and beyond, in research and clinical settings, and which potentially include a different patient set to that described in the S3DWG’s proposal [2].

As defined for the ICD-11 core version, the S3DWG’s “bodily distress disorder” construct has stronger conceptual and characterization alignment with DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder (SSD)” than with Fink et al. (2010) “bodily distress syndrome” [3][4].

It is noted that “Somatic symptom disorder” is listed under Synonyms for the BDD entry in the ICD-11 Beta draft.

The defining feature of both the S3DWG’s “bodily distress disorder” and DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder” is the removal of the distinction between “medically explained” and “medically unexplained” somatic complaints. Rather than define the disorder on the basis of the absence of a known medical cause, instead, specific psychological features are required in order to fulfill the criteria.

The S3DWG’s BDD is characterized by “the presence of bodily symptoms that are distressing to the individual and excessive attention directed toward the symptoms which may be manifest by repeated contact with health care providers.”

“Excessive attention is not alleviated by appropriate clinical examination and investigations and appropriate reassurance.”

“If a medical condition is causing or contributing to the symptoms, the degree of attention is clearly excessive in relation to its nature and progression.”

“Bodily symptoms and associated distress are persistent, being present on most days for at least several months and are associated with significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning.”

The S3DWG’s “bodily distress disorder” may involve a single unspecified somatic symptom or multiple unspecified symptoms that may vary over time, in association with the disorder’s other defining features.

For DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder,” the centrality of medically unexplained symptoms in order to meet the criteria is similarly de-emphasized and replaced by psychological responses to distressing, persistent symptoms: “excessive thoughts, behaviours and feelings” or “excessive preoccupation” with the bodily symptom or associated health concerns [5].

As with BDD, for SSD, the symptoms may or may not be associated with another medical condition. Some patients with general medical  diagnoses, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, or patients diagnosed with the so-called “functional somatic syndromes” may qualify for a diagnosis of SSD if they are perceived as experiencing disproportionate and excessive thoughts and feelings or using maladaptive coping strategies in response to their illness, despite the reassurance of their clinicians [6].

As with the S3DWG’s defining of BDD, for SSD, there is no requirement for a specific number of complaints from among specified symptom groups to meet the criteria: so no symptoms counts or symptom clusters from body systems required for either.

To meet the SSD criteria: at least one symptom of at least six months duration and at least one of three psychological criteria are required: disproportionate thoughts about the seriousness of the symptom(s); or a high level of health anxiety; or devoting excessive time and energy to symptoms or health concerns; and for the symptoms to be significantly distressing or disruptive to daily life.

Though they differ somewhat in the characterization of their severity specifiers, the S3DWG’s defining of BDD and DSM-5 SSD may be considered essentially similar in conceptualization: no distinction between “medically explained” and “medically unexplained”; a much simplified criteria set to those defining the somatoform disorders, based on “excessive” or “disproportionate” psychological responses to persistent distressing symptoms, and with significant impairment or disruption to functioning.

Whereas, for the Fink et al. (2010) “bodily distress syndrome (BDS),” psychological or behavioural characteristics are not part of the criteria: symptom patterns or clusters from organ/body systems (cardiopulmonary; gastrointestinal; musculoskeletal or general symptoms) are central [2]. The diagnosis is exclusively made on the basis of the somatic symptoms, their complexity and duration, with moderate  to severe impairment of daily life. There is a “Modest: single organ” type and a “Severe: multi-organ” type.

The Fink et al. (2010) BDS construct is considered by its authors to have the ability to capture the somatoform disorders, neurasthenia, “functional symptoms” and the so-called “functional somatic syndromes” under a single, unifying disorder construct which subsumes CFS, ME, fibromyalgia and IBS (which are discretely classified within other chapters of ICD-10), noncardiac chest pain, chronic pain disorder, MCS and some others [7][8][9].

(The various so-called specialty “functional somatic syndromes” are considered by the authors to be an artifact of medical specialization and manifestations of a similar, underlying disorder with a common, hypothesized aetiology.)

Contrast this with the S3DWG’s BDD construct, which makes no assumptions about aetiology and does not exclude symptoms associated with general medical conditions; whereas, for Fink et al. BDS, “If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.”

That DSM-5 SSD and Fink et al. (2010) BDS are differently conceptualized, with different criteria sets, potentially capturing different patient populations has been acknowledged by SSD work group chair, Joel E Dimsdale, and by Fink, Henningsen and Creed [10][11]. In the literature, however, one observes frequent instances where the term “bodily distress disorder” has been used when what is actually being discussed within the paper or editorial is the Fink et al. (2010) “bodily distress syndrome (BDS)” disorder construct.

For example, “bodily distress disorder” is used interchangeably with “bodily distress syndrome” in the editorial (Creed et al. 2010): Is there a better term than “medically unexplained symptoms”? [1].

In this (Rief and Isaac 2014) editorial: The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? the authors are using the term, “bodily distress disorder” while clearly discussing the Fink et al. (2010) BDS  construct [12].

The S3DWG’s proposed term is seen, here, as “Bodily distress disorder (Fink and Schroder 2010)” in Slide #3 of the symposium presentation: An introduction to “medically unexplained” persistent physical symptoms. (Professor Trudie Chalder, Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s Health Partners, 2014) [13].

This recent paper: Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders (Schumacher et al. 2017) compares prognostic validity of DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder (SSD)” with “bodily distress disorder (BDD)” and “polysymptomatic distress disorder (PSDD)” and discusses their potential as alternatives to SSD for the replacement of the somatoform disorders for the forthcoming ICD-11 [14].

The authors state, “the current draft of the WHO group is based on the BDD proposal.” But the authors  have confirmed that for their study, they had operationalized “Bodily distress disorder based on Fink et al. 2007” [15].

In the (Fink et al. 2007) paper: Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients, the authors conclude: “We identified a general, distinct, bodily distress syndrome or disorder that seems to encompass the various functional syndromes advanced by different medical specialties as well as somatization disorder and related diagnoses of the psychiatric classification.”

There are other examples in the literature and in the field. But these suffice to demonstrate that the term, “bodily distress disorder” is already used synonymously with disorder term “bodily distress syndrome (BDS)” and that researchers/clinicians, including Fink et al., do not differentiate between the two.

If researchers/clinicians do not differentiate between “bodily distress syndrome” and “bodily distress disorder” (and in some cases, one observes the conflations, “bodily distress syndrome or disorder” and “bodily distress syndrome/disorder”), has the S3DWG considered the difficulties and implications for maintaining the discrete identity of its proposed disorder, once ICD-11 is in the hands of its end users – clinicians, allied health professionals and coders; or considered the implications for patients and the particular vulnerability of those diagnosed with one of the so-called, “functional somatic syndromes”; or the implications for data reporting and analysis?

The S3DWG presented its emerging proposals for subsuming most of the ICD-10 somatoform disorder categories between F45.0 – F45.9, and F48.0 Neurasthenia, under a new single category which it proposes to call “bodily distress disorder (BDD)” in 2012 [3] and again in 2016 [4].

Thus far, the S3DWG has published no rationale for its recommendation to repurpose a disorder term already strongly associated with the Fink et al. (2010) disorder construct.

Neither has the group discussed nor acknowledged within its papers the implications for confusion and conflation between its own SSD- like “BDD” construct and the Fink et al. “bodily distress syndrome (BDS).”

Nor has the group’s output discussed the potential difficulties and implications for maintaining construct integrity within and beyond  ICD-11.

There is no justification for introducing a new disorder category into ICD-11 that has greater conceptual alignment with the DSM-5 SSD construct but is proposed to be assigned a disorder name that is closely associated with a divergent (and operationalized)  construct/criteria set, that is already in use in research and clinical settings.

This is unsafe and unsound classificatory practice.

This proposed disorder name should be rejected by the Project Lead for the revision of the Mental or behavioural disorders chapter and by the Joint Task Force that is overseeing the finalization of ICD-11  MMS.

If the S3DWG is unprepared or unwilling to reconsider and recommend an alternative disorder name then I submit that the current proposal to replace the somatoform disorders with a single “bodily distress disorder” category should be abandoned.

ICD-11 should proceed with the ICD-10 status quo, or retire or deprecate the somatoform disorder categories for the next edition.

It is perhaps germane that in 2010, three years prior to the finalization of DSM-5, Creed et al. had advanced: “Somatic symptom disorder is not a term that is likely to be embraced enthusiastically by doctors or patients; it has an uncertain core concept, dubious wide acceptability across cultures and does not promote multidisciplinary treatment. In our discussion, the terms which fit most closely the criteria we have set out above were the following: bodily distress (or stress) syndrome/ disorder, psychosomatic or psychophysical disorder, functional (somatic) syndrome or disorder.” [1]

The authors conclude that “bodily distress disorder” best fitted their “Criteria to judge the value of alternative terms for ‘medically unexplained symptoms.'”

It would appear that the term “bodily distress disorder” can mean anything anyone chooses it to mean – which might be admissible for Humpty Dumpty but unsound classificatory practice for ICD-11 [16].

References:

1 Creed F, Guthrie E, Fink P, Henningsen P, Rief W, Sharpe M, White P. Is there a better term than “medically unexplained symptoms”? J Psychosom Res. 2010 Jan;68(1):5-8. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.09.004. [PMID: 20004295]

2 Fink P, Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26. [PMID: 20403500]

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. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2012.741063. [PMID: 23244611]

4 Gureje O, Reed GM. Bodily distress disorder in ICD-11: problems and prospects. World Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;15(3):291-292. doi: 10.1002/wps.20353. [PMID: 27717252]

5 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

6 Frances A, Chapman S. DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4. [PMID: 23653063]

7 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. 2013 Feb;30(1):76-87. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cms037. Epub 2012 Jul 28. [PMID: 22843638]

8 Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4. [PMID: 24427171]

9 Goldberg DP, Reed GM, Robles R, Bobes J, Iglesias C, Fortes S, de Jesus Mari J, Lam TP, Minhas F, Razzaque B et al. Multiple somatic symptoms in primary care: A field study for ICD-11 PHC, WHO’s revised classification of mental disorders in primary care settings. J Psychosom Res. 2016 Dec;91:48-54. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.10.002. Epub 2016 Oct 4. [PMID: 27894462]

10 Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

11 Frances Creed and Per Fink. Presentations, Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014.

12 Rief W, Isaac M. The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Curr Opin Psychiatry September 2014 – Volume 27 – Issue 5 – p315–319. [PMID: 25023885]

13 Chalder, T. An introduction to “medically unexplained” persistent physical symptoms. Presentation, Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s Health Partners, 2014. [Accessed 27 February 2017]

14 Schumacher S, Rief W, Klaus K, Brähler E, Mewes R. Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders. Psychol Med. 2017 Feb 9:1-14. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000149. [PMID: 28179046]

15 Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9. [PMID: 17244846]

16 Carroll L. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. 1885. Macmillan.

Comment submitted to ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health re: Bodily distress disorder

Post #323 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-465

There are two ways in which stakeholders can submit comments on proposals in the ICD-11 Beta draft or make formal suggestions for changes or additions to the draft:

by selecting a disorder or disease term and submitting a comment on the proposed ICD-11 Title term, on the proposed Definition text (if a Definition has already been populated), or commenting on the lists of Synonyms, Inclusions, Exclusions or on any other Content Model descriptors. Users may also leave replies to comments submitted by other users or invite others to participate in threads;

by selecting a disorder or disease term and suggesting changes to the classification or enhancement of existing content by proposing Definition texts, additional Synonyms or Exclusions, additional child entities, changes to existing parent/child hierarchies or deletions of existing entities – ideally supported with rationales and references. Proposals for changes or suggestions for modifications are submitted via the Proposals Mechanism platform. This platform also supports user comments. Once submitted, the progress of a proposal can be tracked.

To register for interaction with the Beta draft see User Guide: Information on registering and signing in

To comment on existing proposals see User Guide: Commenting on the category

To suggest changes or submit new proposals see User Guide: Proposals

At the time of writing, the Beta draft is subject to a frozen release (frozen May 31, 2015) but this does not prevent registered users from continuing to commenting on the ICD-11 Beta draft or from submitting proposals via the Proposals Mechanism.

Comment submitted to TAG Mental Health in May re: Bodily distress disorder

On May 2, 2015, I posted a commentary via the ICD-11 Beta platform Comment facility. As one needs to be registered in order to read/make comments and submit proposals, I have pasted a copy, below.

Once uploaded, Comments and Proposals are screened and forwarded to the appropriate Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Managing Editors for their consideration. In this case, my comment will have been forwarded to the Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health.

Some of the points raised, below, had already been raised by me, either via the Beta platform or directly with ICD Revision personnel. But it may be advantageous to consolidate these points within the one comment for two reasons:

Firstly, the level of global concern around ICD-11 proposals by the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders for a new disorder construct, currently proposed to be called “Bodily distress disorder (BDD),” and also for the alternative proposals of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group.

Secondly, the unsoundness of introducing into ICD a new disorder category that proposes to use terminology which is already closely associated with a conceptually divergent disorder construct isn’t being given due attention in journal papers or editorials and has yet to be acknowledged or addressed by the ICD-11 subworking group responsible for this recommendation.

 

Click link for PDF document   Chapman BDD Submission May 2015

Comment, Bodily distress disorder

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268?showcomment=_4_id_3_who_3_int_1_icd_1_entity_1_767044268 [Log in required]

Suzy Chapman 2015-May-02 – 20:43 UTC

It should be noted that earlier this year, TAG Mental Health added the new DSM-5 disorder term “Somatic symptom disorder” under Synonyms to “Bodily distress disorder (BDD).”

I welcome affirmation that BDD, as defined by ICD-11 Beta, shares common conceptual features with DSM-5’s SSD.

However, as with “Somatic symptom disorder”, the proposed “Bodily distress disorder” diagnosis is unsupported by any substantial body of evidence for its likely validity, safety and acceptability. We [Allen Frances and Suzy Chapman, 2012-13] have called for a higher standard of evidence and risk-benefit analysis for ICD Revision [1][2][3].

BDD’s characterization, as entered into the Beta draft and as described by Gureje and Creed (2012), is far looser than the (rarely used) definitions of Somatization disorder in DSM-IV and in ICD-10 [4].

BDD broadens the diagnosis to include those where a diagnosed general medical condition is causing or contributing to the symptom(s) if the degree of attention is considered excessive in relation to the condition’s nature and progression. Like SSD, the diagnosis does not require symptoms to be “medically unexplained” but instead refers to any persistent and clinically significant somatic complaint(s) with associated psychobehavioural responses: excessive thoughts, feelings and behaviours. There were long-standing concerns for the over-inclusiveness of DSM-IV’s Undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

BDD’s three severity specifiers rely on highly subjective clinical decision making around loose and difficult to measure cognitions; as with SSD, there are considerable concerns that lack of specificity will expose patients to risk of misdiagnosis, missed or delayed diagnosis, misapplication of a mental disorder, iatrogenic disease and stigma.

Whether the term “Bodily distress disorder” (or “Body distress disorder,” as Sudhir Hebbar [a psychiatrist who had left an earlier comment on the Beta draft in respect of the proposed BDD name and disorder construct] has suggested) is used for this proposed replacement for the Somatoform disorder categories, F45.0 – F45.9, plus F48.0 Neurasthenia, both the disorder conceptualization and the terminology remain problematic.

The terms “Bodily distress disorder” and “Bodily distress syndrome” (Fink et al, 2010) are already being used synonymously in the literature.

The terms are used interchangeably in papers by Fink and colleagues from around 2007 onwards [5] and by Creed, Guthrie et al, in 2010 [6]. They are used interchangeably by Professor Creed in symposia presentations.

In a September 2014 editorial by Rief and Isaac [7] the term “Bodily distress disorder” has been employed throughout, whereas the construct that Rief and Isaac are actually discussing is the Fink et al (2010) BDS disorder construct – not the “BDD” construct, as defined in the Beta draft – which the authors do not discuss, at all.

According to the Beta draft Definition and BDD’s three severity characterizations (Mild; Moderate; Severe), the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (the S3DWG) defines “Bodily distress disorder” as having strong construct congruency and characterization alignment with DSM-5’s “Somatic Symptom Disorder” and poor conceptual alignment with Fink et al’s, already operationalized, “Bodily distress syndrome” [8].

If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with greater conceptual concordance with the DSM-5 SSD construct there can be no rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder.”

There is significant potential for confusion over disorder conceptualization and for disorder conflation if the S3DWG’s proposed replacement for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized, but divergent construct and criteria set.

Additionally, the acronym “BDD” is already in use to indicate Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

If ICD-11 intends to proceed with the BDD construct following field test evaluation, and despite the lack of a body of evidence for validity, safety and acceptability, then an alternative disorder term needs to be assigned.

In a 2010 paper, Creed and co-authors advanced that “Somatic symptom disorder is not a term that is likely to be embraced enthusiastically by doctors or patients; it has an uncertain core concept, dubious wide acceptability across cultures and does not promote multidisciplinary treatment” and they expressed a preference for the term, “bodily distress syndrome/disorder” [6].

I have no evidence that Prof Creed has changed his opinions about SSD since the publication of DSM-5 and perhaps he remains wedded to the “Bodily distress disorder” term (and wedded to the BDS construct) and is reluctant to relinquish the term.

Creed, Henningsen and Fink acknowledge that Fink et al’s (2010) BDS construct is very different to DSM-5’s SSD; that BDS and SSD have very different criteria and that they capture, or potentially capture, different patient populations [9].

Budtz-Lilly, Fink et al (In Press) outline some of the conceptual differences between SSD and BDS:

“The newly introduced DSM-5 diagnosis, somatic symptom disorder (SSD), has replaced most of the DSM-IV somatoform disorder subcategories [10]. The diagnosis requires the presence of one or more bothering somatic symptoms of any aetiology and is not based on exclusion of any medical condition (…) BDS and SSD represent two very conceptually different diagnoses. BDS is based on symptom pattern recognition only, and symptoms are thought to be caused by hyperactivity in the central nervous system, whereas SSD criteria are based on prominent positive psycho-behavioural symptoms or characteristics, but no hypothesis of aetiology. BDS is assessed without asking patients about psychological symptoms.” [10]

In order to fulfill the clinical criteria of BDS, the symptom pattern may not be better explained by another disease. Whereas the SSD diagnosis may be applied to a heterogeneous group of patients: as a “bolt-on” mental health diagnosis for patients with, for example, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic pain conditions, or to patients with so-called specialty-specific functional somatic syndromes, or to patients with “functional symptoms”, if the criteria are otherwise met.

SSD, then, clearly cannot be BDS. And if the S3DWG’s BDD is close in conceptualization and criteria to SSD, then the S3DWG’s BDD cannot be BDS, either. But the terms BDD and BDS are already used interchangeably outside ICD-11.

What is the S3DWG rationale for proposing to use this disorder term when the group is aware that outside the context of ICD-11 Beta proposals, the term is synonymously used with an already operationalized, but divergent disorder construct?

Whatever the group’s justification, the term is clearly inappropriate; it needs urgent scrutiny beyond the S3DWG group and I call on TAG Mental Health and the Revision Steering Group to review the BDD disorder descriptions in the context of the group’s current choice of terminology.

But the waters get even muddier:

Possibly Sudhir Hebbar and other users of the Beta platform are unaware that in addition to the 17 member S3DWG subworking group’s proposals, the 12 member Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) is also charged with advising ICD-11 on the revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders framework and disorder categories.

The 28 mental disorders approved for inclusion in the abridged ICD-11 primary care version will require an equivalent category within the core edition.

The Primary Care Consultation Group [chair, Prof, Sir David Goldberg] has proposed an alternative construct which it proposes to name, “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)”. The PCCG’s “BSS” draws heavily on the Fink et al (2010) “Bodily distress syndrome” disorder construct and criteria [8][11].

(NB: Rief and Isaac [7] question the justification of the BDS construct for inclusion within a mental disorder classification due to the absence of requirement for positive psychobehavioural features. In 2012, the PCCG’s proposed “BSS” had included some psychobehavioural features to meet the criteria, tacked onto an essentially BDS-like model. Whether this modification was intended as a nod towards DSM-5’s SSD or to legitimise inclusion of a BDS-like model/criteria set within a mental disorder classification is not discussed within the group’s 2012 paper. With no recent update on proposals available, I cannot confirm whether the PCCG’s adapted BDS retains these additional psychobehavioural features.)

Budtz-Lilly, Fink et al (In Press) write:

“In the current draft, the ICD-11 primary care work group has included these [BDS] criteria in their suggestion for a definition of bodily (di)stress syndrome with minor adaptations.” [10] (The paper does not specify what these “minor adaptations” are.)

The authors go on to state:

“Furthermore the ICD-11 somatoform disorder psychiatry work group has announced that the term ‘bodily distress disorder’ will be used for the diagnosis.”

Here, one assumes the authors are referring to the S3DWG subworking group. It is disingenuous of the authors to imply that the S3DWG is onside with the PCCG’s proposals, whilst omitting any discussion of the core differences between the two groups’ proposed disorder constructs and criteria.

According to Ivbijaro and Goldberg (2013) the Primary Care Consultation Group’s (adapted “BDS”) construct has been progressed to field tests [12].

In his September 2014 presentation at the XVI World Congress of Psychiatry, in Madrid, Prof Oye Gureje confirmed that the S3DWG’s “Bodily Distress Disorder” is also currently a subject of tests of its utility and reliability in internet- and clinic-based studies.

So both sets of proposals are undergoing field testing. But since the proposed full disorder descriptions, criteria, differential diagnoses, exclusions etc have not been public domain published and because no progress reports have been issued by either work group since 2012, stakeholders are still unable to scrutinize and compare the two sets of current proposals, side by side.

Significant concerns remain around the deliberations of these two working groups:

a) their lack of transparency: there have been no papers or progress reports published on behalf of either group since 2012; the key Gureje and Creed 2012 paper remains behind a paywall;

b) no rationale has been published for the S3DWG’s proposal to call its proposed construct “BDD” when it evidently has greater conceptual concordance with SSD and poor concordance with Fink et al’s BDS, for which the “BDD” term is already in use, synonymously; there has been no discussion by either group for the implications for construct integrity;

c) it remains unclear whether the S3DWG’s “BDD” will incorporate Exclusions for CFS, ME, Fibromyalgia and IBS, which are currently discretely coded for within ICD-10, and which are considered may be especially vulnerable to misdiagnosis or misapplication of a diagnosis of “BDD”, under the construct as it is currently proposed;

[Dr Geoffrey Reed has said that he cannot request Exclusions until the missing G93.3 legacy terms have been added back into the Beta draft, but at such time, he would be happy to do so.]

d) the PCCG’s “BSS” proposed diagnosis appears to be inclusive of children [11] but there is currently no information from the S3DWG on whether their proposed “BDD” diagnosis is also intended to be applied in children and young people;

e) there is no body of independent evidence for the validity, reliability and safety of the application of “SSD”, “BDD”, “BSS” or Fink et al’s (2010) BDS in children and young people;

f) because of the lack of recent progress reports setting out current iterations for disorder descriptions and criteria, it cannot be determined what modifications and adaptations have been made by the PCCG to the Fink et al (2010) BDS disorder description/criteria for specific ICD-11 field test use. Likewise, the only information to which we have access for the criteria that are being field tested for BDD is what little information appears in the Beta draft.

Fink et al’s BDS construct is considered by its authors to have the ability to capture the somatoform disorders, neurasthenia, noncardiac chest pain and other pain syndromes, “functional symptoms”, and the so-called “FSSs”, including CFS, ME, Fibromyalgia and IBS [8][13].

[Under the Fink et al disorder construct, the various so-called specialty “functional somatic syndromes” are considered to be manifestations of a similar, underlying disorder.]

In Lam et al (2012) the PCCG list a number of diseases and conditions for consideration under Differential diagnosis, vis: “Consider physical disease with multiple symptoms, e.g. multiple sclerosis, hyperparathyroidism, acute intermittent porphyria, myasthenia gravis, AIDS, systemic lupus erythematosus, Lyme disease, connective tissues disease.”

Notably, Chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, IBS and Fibromyalgia are omitted from the Differential diagnosis list. The authors are silent about whether their adapted BDS is intended to capture these discretely coded for ICD-10 diagnoses and if not, how these disorder groups could be reliably excluded [11].

ICD Revision has said that it does not intend to classify CFS, ME and Fibromyalgia under Mental and behavioural disorders. However, it has not clarified what measures would be taken to safeguard these patient groups if BSS were to be approved by the RSG for use in the ICD-11-PHC version.

There have been considerable concerns, globally, amongst patients, patient advocacy groups and the clinicians who advise them for the introduction in Denmark of the BDS disorder construct: these concerns apply equally to “BSS”.

It should also be noted that since early 2013, the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy entities, Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; Chronic fatigue syndrome, have been absent from the public version of the Beta draft. For over two years, now, and despite numerous requests (including requests by UK health directorates, parliamentarians and registered advocacy organizations) proposals for the chapter location and parent classes for these three terms (and their proposed Definitions and other Content Model parameters) have not been released.

Again, I request that these terms are restored to the Beta draft, with a “Change History”, in order that professional and lay stakeholders are able to monitor and participate fully in the revision process, a process from which they are currently disenfranchised.

If any clinicians attempting to follow the revision of the Somatoform disorders share concerns for any of the issues raised in these comments and wish to discuss further, they are most welcome to contact me via “Dx Revision Watch.”


References

1 Frances A. The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. BMJ. 2013 Mar 18;346:f1580.

2 Allen Frances, Suzy Chapman. DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4.

3 Frances A. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Jun;201(6):530-1.

4 Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012;24:556-67.

5 Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9.

6 Creed F, Guthrie E, Fink P et al, Is there a better term than ‘medically unexplained symptoms’?. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:5-8

7 Rief W, Isaac M. The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Curr Opin Psychiatry 2014 Sep;27(5):315-9.

8 Fink P, Schroder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26.

9 Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

10 In Press: Anna Budtz-Lilly, Per Fink, Eva Ornbol, Mogens Vestergaard, Grete Moth, Kaj Sparle Christensen, Marianne Rosendal. A new questionnaire to identify bodily distress in primary care: The ‘BDS checklist’. J Psychosom Res. [Published J Psychosom Res. June 2015 Volume 78, Issue 6, Pages 536–545]

11 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. Family Practice (2013) 30 (1): 76-87.

12 Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4.

13 Fink et al: Proposed new classification: https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/finkproposednewclass1.png


 

Caveats: 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 ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and Sorting codes currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and category omissions.

Abstract: WPA Congress 2014: ICD-11 Symposia: Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of bodily distress disorders

Post #320 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-43v

Edited version of the text published on 13.01.15.

Screenshot: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version, 13.01.15; Chapter 07 Mental and behavioural disorders: Bodily distress disorder. Joint Linerarization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (JLMMS) view selected.

+++
BDD130115

“Show availability in main linearizations” view selected. Hover text for categories designated with three coloured key reads: “In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource.” Hover text for categories designated with single blue key reads: “In Mortality and Morbidity.”

Two working groups, two sets of recommendations

The Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG) is one of two working groups advising the Mental Health Topic Advisory Group (TAG) on the potential revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories for ICD-11.

The other group tasked with making recommendations on the revision of the Somatoform disorders is the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG), led by Prof Sir David Goldberg [1].

The S3DWG’s disorder construct is the construct that has been entered into the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform since 2012 [2].

Perversely, the S3DWG is proposing to call its disorder construct, “Bodily distress disorder” (BDD) – a term already being used outside ICD Revision, interchangeably, with Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS), which is conceptually different.

To further muddy the waters, the PCCG has proposed calling its construct (which in 2012 had drawn heavily on the Fink et al BDS concept but with some DSM-5 SSD-like psychobehavioural features tacked on), “Bodily stress syndrome” (BSS).

So four very similar terms in play:

Bodily distress disorder (S3DWG, the construct entered into the Beta draft)

Body distress disorders (PCCG primary care disorder group heading*)

Bodily stress syndrome (PCCG disorder category sitting under Body distress disorders*)

Bodily Distress Syndrome (Fink et al, 2010)

*As proposals of the Primary Care Consultation Group had stood in mid 2012 [1].

The co-chair of the Mental Health TAG agrees that the S3DWG’s BDD and Fink et al’s (2010) BDS construct [3] are conceptually different; that there is potential for confusion between the two constructs and he will be discussing the issue of BDD terminology with the working group.

I shall be reporting on some recently proposed revisions to the definition text for BDD and its three Severities in my next post.

ICD-11 Symposia, XVI World Congress of Psychiatry, Madrid 2014

The have been no progress reports from either the S3DWG or the PCCG since emerging proposals for both working groups were published in 2012.

In September, Professor Oye Gureje, who chairs the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders, presented on “Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders” as part of series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, in Madrid.

In the absence of progress reports, I have requested that WHO/WPA make a transcript, slides or summary of this presentation publicly available.

In the meantime, the Abstracts for these ICD-11 symposia presentations can be found here:

http://www.tilesa.es/wpamadrid2014/abstracts/volume8/files/assets/basic-html/page352.html

also: http://www.tilesa.es/wpamadrid2014/abstracts/volume8/index.html#/352/zoomed

XVI World Congress of Psychiatry. Madrid 2014
Volume 2. Abstracts Regular Symposia

[…]

http://www.tilesa.es/wpamadrid2014/abstracts/volume8/files/assets/basic-html/page354.html

Session: Regular Symposium SPEAKER 3 Code SY469

Title: Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of bodily distress disorders

Speaker O. Gureje University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Abstract Objectives:

The disorder categories currently classified in the group of Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10 have been the subject of controversy relating to their names, utility, reliability and acceptability.

The ongoing development of ICD-11 presents an opportunity to revise these categories so as to enhance their utility and overall acceptability.

Methods: The WHO ICD-11 Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders has conducted a comprehensive review of the current status of Somatoform Disorders, drawing on literature from across the world and considered within diverse clinical experiences of experts who were consulted for the revision exercise. Proposals for DSM-5 and their suitability for global application were also considered.

Results: Important areas for improving the utility and reliability of disorders grouped under Somatoform Disorders were identified. These areas encompass name, content, structure and clarity of the phenomenology. A simplified category of Bodily Distress Disorder with an improved set of guidelines for making the diagnosis has been proposed to replace current Somatoform Disorders categories.

Bodily Distress Disorder may be described as Mild, Moderate, or Severe based on the extent of focus on bodily symptoms and their interference with personal functioning. Bodily Distress Disorder is currently a subject of tests of its utility and reliability in internet- and clinic-based studies via the extensive network that WHO has developed.

Conclusions: Bodily Distress Disorder holds the promise of addressing the various concerns that have been expressed in regard to the utility and applicability of categories currently classified under Somatoform Disorders. The overarching goal of the new category is to enhance the clinical care of patients presenting with these common and disabling conditions. Bodily Distress Disorder is currently a subject of tests of its utility and reliability in internet- and clinic-based studies, including in primary care settings, via the extensive network that WHO has developed.

References Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. International Review of Psychiatry 2012; 24:556-567

Further reading:

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. Family Practice (2013) 30 (1): 76-87. Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

2 Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012;24:556-67. [Abstract: PMID: 23244611]

3 Fink P, Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May; 68(5):415-26.  [Abstract: PMID: 20403500].

Caveats: 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 ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and sorting codes currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and category omissions.

HHS issue Final Rule: ICD-10-CM compliance deadline set for October 1, 2015

Post #314 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3ZI

CMS Press Release:  Final Rule July 31, 2014

Coding industry and professional body reaction

ICD-10 Testing: Final rule overshadows CMS testing plans

ICD10 Watch | Carl Natale | August 2, 2014

+++
Debunking Myths and Misperceptions of ICD-10 – Journal of AHIMA illustrates why it’s time for 10

AHIMA | News Release | July 30, 2014

+++
DHHS final rule on ICD-10 delay ready for publication

ICD10Watch | Carl Natale | July 31, 2014

+++
CMS Confirms ICD-10 Deadline

Health Leaders Media | Michelle Leppert | August 1, 2014

+++
ICD-10 Final Rule Released, October 2015 Official Compliance Deadline

Journal of AHIMA | Mary Butler | July 31, 2014

+++
ICD-10 Final Rule Stirs Angst, Apprehension

ICD10 Monitor | Chuck Buck | August 1, 2014

+++
(From June 12, 2014)

SNOMED, ICD-11 Not Feasible Alternatives to ICD-10-CM/PCS Implementation

AHIMA | Sue Bowman | June 12, 2014

“For the US, [2017] is the beginning, not the end, of the process toward adoption of ICD-11.”

+++
Resources

Federal Register: HHS ICD-10-CM Compliance FINAL RULE

[PDF] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Office of the Secretary
45 CFR Part 162 [CMS-0043-F] RIN 0938-AS31
Administrative Simplification: Change to the Compliance Date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD–10–CM and ICD-10-PCS) Medical Data Code Sets

CMS Press Release:  Final Rule July 31, 2014

CMS NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    Contact: CMS Media Relations

July 31, 2014                                   (202) 690-6145 or press@cms.hhs.gov

 

Deadline for ICD-10 allows health care industry ample time to prepare for change

Deadline set for October 1, 2015

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule today finalizing Oct. 1, 2015 as the new compliance date for health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses to transition to ICD-10, the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases. This deadline allows providers, insurance companies and others in the health care industry time to ramp up their operations to ensure their systems and business processes are ready to go on Oct. 1, 2015.

The ICD-10 codes on a claim are used to classify diagnoses and procedures on claims submitted to Medicare and private insurance payers. By enabling more detailed patient history coding, ICD-10 can help to better coordinate a patient’s care across providers and over time. ICD-10 improves quality measurement and reporting, facilitates the detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse, and leads to greater accuracy of reimbursement for medical services. The code set’s granularity will improve data capture and analytics of public health surveillance and reporting, national quality reporting, research and data analysis, and provide detailed data to enhance health care delivery. Health care providers and specialty groups in the United States provided extensive input into the development of ICD-10, which includes more detailed codes for the conditions they treat and reflects advances in medicine and medical technology.

“ICD-10 codes will provide better support for patient care, and improve disease management, quality measurement and analytics,” said Marilyn Tavenner, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). “For patients under the care of multiple providers, ICD-10 can help promote care coordination.”

Using ICD-10, doctors can capture much more information, meaning they can better understand important details about the patient’s health than with ICD-9-CM. Moreover, the level of detail that is provided for by ICD-10 means researchers and public health officials can better track diseases and health outcomes. ICD-10 reflects improved diagnosis of chronic illness and identifies underlying causes, complications of disease, and conditions that contribute to the complexity of a disease. Additionally, ICD-10 captures the severity and stage of diseases such as chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and asthma.

The previous revision, ICD-9-CM, contains outdated, obsolete terms that are inconsistent with current medical practice, new technology and preventive services.

ICD-10 represents a significant change that impacts the entire health care community. As such, much of the industry has already invested resources toward the implementation of ICD-10. CMS has implemented a comprehensive testing approach, including end-to-end testing in 2015, to help ensure providers are ready. While many providers, including physicians, hospitals, and health plans, have completed the necessary system changes to transition to ICD-10, the time offered by Congress and this rule ensure all providers are ready.

For additional information about ICD-10, please visit: http://www.cms.gov/ICD10

###

 

Summary of responses from WHO re: Bodily distress disorder, Bodily stress syndrome, Bodily Distress Syndrome

Post #313 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3YR

+++

Screenshot: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version, July 31, 2014; Chapter 06 Mental and behavioural disorders: Bodily distress disorder.

+++
BDD310714

Joint Linerarization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics view selected; “show availability in main linearizations” view selected. Categories designated with three coloured key hover text: “In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource. Categories designated with single blue key hover text: “In Mortality and Morbidity.”

+++
Summary of responses from Dr Geoffrey Reed, WHO

On July 23, I submitted an analysis and four questions via the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform for the attention of the Managing Editors for Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Mental Health, the advisory group that is revising ICD-10’s Chapter V.

A copy has been posted in Dx Revision Watch Post #311: Questions raised on ICD-11 Beta draft re: Bodily distress disorder http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Yh

Comments and suggestions submitted by registered users of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform are screened and forwarded to the appropriate TAG Managing Editors for review.

I also sent a copy of my comments to Dr Geoffrey Reed. Dr Reed is Senior Project Officer overseeing the revision of the ICD Mental and behavioural disorders chapter.

On July 24, I received a response from Dr Reed, via email.

Dr Reed’s responses do not address all the points I had raised via the Beta platform and in my covering email. I am providing a summary of selected of Dr Reed’s responses, below.

I had also drawn Dr Reed’s attention to the absence, since early 2013, of the three G93.3 terms from the public version of the Beta draft and collective concerns for ICD Revision’s failure, to date, to respond to multiple requests to provide an explanation for the continued absence of these terms from the Beta draft and to clarify ICD Revision’s intentions and proposals for the classification of these three ICD-10 terms within ICD-11 [i.e. chapter location(s), parent code(s), hierarchies, Definitions, Synonyms, Inclusion terms etc.].

+++
Dr Reed provided the following information on July 24:

The placement of ME and related conditions within the broader ICD-11 classification is still unresolved.

There has been no proposal and no intention to include ME or other conditions such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome in the classification of mental disorders.

That ME and related conditions be clearly identified as NOT being part of this section of the classification could be made absolutely clear through the use of exclusion terms.

However, Dr Reed will be unable to request that exclusion terms be added to relevant Mental and behavioural disorders categories (e.g., Bodily Distress Disorder) until the conditions that are being excluded exist in the classification. At such time, he would be happy to request exclusion terms.

ICD Revision is currently involved in testing the proposals of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group* in primary care settings around the world, in part to compare how they work with the proposals of the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders**.

Whether the primary care proposal ends up capturing specific groups of patients in primary care who are likely to have underlying medical conditions will certainly be one of the issues for examination and further discussion. Study data would be used as a basis for modifying proposals.

That he considers my analysis is accurate.

That it is not WHO policy to make research protocols for field trial studies that are planned or currently being implemented publicly available for comment.

Details of the study methodology at the time the data are published are expected to be provided, in order that others may examine and critique the methodology, their interpretation of results and their subsequent decisions based on the studies.

Further modifications of the proposals will be based on data evaluation, and justifications made available.

In due course, ICD Revision will make more detailed diagnostic guidelines for all Mental and behavioural disorders available for review and comment before they are finalized, but ICD Revision is not yet ready to do that.

Dr Reed will notify me when that occurs, but anticipates this will be before the end of the year and considers there is plenty of time for review as the approval of ICD-11 is now currently planned for May, 2017.

Dr Reed’s purview does not extend to the section on classification of Diseases of the nervous system or other areas outside the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter, and is therefore unable to provide any information related to how these conditions will be classified in other chapters***.

He is unable to comment about the management of correspondence by other TAG groups**** and signposts to another member of WHO staff [a senior classification expert who had been copied into the joint organizations’ letter to WHO/ICD Revision, in March].

+++
Footnotes:

* Back in 2012, the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group (the PCCG) were proposing a disorder construct that presented a modified version of the Fink et al (2010) Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) construct which, at that point, the Primary Care group were proposing to call, “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS).”

The PCCG hasn’t published a progress report since 2012 and the group’s current proposals are not available for scrutiny. If a modified version of BDS is currently being proposed by the PCCG, it isn’t known what changes have been made to the group’s proposals since the Lam et al paper was published in 2012, a paper which is now in the public domain [1].

An editorial co-authored by Prof David Goldberg, in June 2013, implied that Prof Goldberg, at least, was advancing that BDS should be progressed to ICD-11 field testing. It is unclear from Dr Reed’s responses to what extent the PCCG’s most recent proposals correspond to the disorder descriptions and criteria for Fink et al’s, already operationalized, BDS, or whether the group has retained the “BSS” disorder name for the purposes of the field tests and a modified construct/criteria set.

+++
** In 2012, the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (the S3DWG) were proposing an alternative and divergent disorder construct that had good concordance with DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder, and poor concordance with Fink et al’s BDS [2].

Perversely, the S3DWG were proposing to call their disorder construct, “Bodily distress disorder (BDD)” – a term already used outside ICD Revision, interchangeably, with Bodily Distress Syndrome [3].

It is the S3DWG’s BDD disorder construct that has been entered into the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

The Beta draft entry for BDD has recently had characterizations inserted for three BDD severity specifiers: BDD, Mild; BDD, Moderate; BDD, Severe. This post (which was written before I received responses from Dr Reed) sets out these recent additions to the draft in the context of the two divergent sets of proposals: Definitions for three severities of Bodily distress disorder now inserted in ICD-11 Beta draft, July 19, 2014 http://wp.me/pKrrB-3X9

+++
*** This February 8, 2014 post: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3IX tracks the history of the progression of the three ICD-10 G93.3 categories, PVFS, (B)ME and CFS within the ICD-11 drafting platform, from May 2010 to early 2013.

Under the subheading “So why have these three ICD-10 terms disappeared and why is ICD Revision reluctant to respond?” I have suggested a number of potential reasons for the current absence of these three terms from the Beta draft.

+++
**** On March 17, a joint letter signed by Sonya Chowdhury, CEO, Action for M.E., Annette Brooke MP, Chair, All Party Parliamentary Group on M.E., The Countess of Mar, Chair, Forward M.E. and Dr Charles Shepherd, ME Association, was sent to key Topic Advisory Group for Neurology members and copied to WHO’s Dr Margaret Chan, Dr Geoffrey Reed and Dr Robert Jakob.

The letter had requested, inter alia, clarification for the absence of the three ICD-10 G93.3 terms, Postviral fatigue syndrome, Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome from the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

Prior to early 2013, in the public version of the Beta draft, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome had been listed in the Beta Foundation Component as an ICD Title entity under the Diseases of the nervous system chapter, with Benign Myalgic encephalomyelitis specified as an Inclusion term to Title term CFS, and Postviral fatigue syndrome listed under Synonyms to Title term, CFS.

The joint letter can be read here:

http://www.actionforme.org.uk/Resources/Action%20for%20ME/Documents/get-informed/who-icd-11-letter-17-3-14-sc.pdf

At the July 1 meeting of the APPG on M.E. it was agreed that in the absence of a response, Annette Brooke MP (Chair) would follow up the correspondence. Minuted here (under 3 Matters arising; d) ICD-11):

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2014/07/minutes-of-the-appg-on-me-meeting-and-the-agm-held-on-1-july-2014/

I have advised Sonya Chowdhury, Dr Charles Shepherd, Neil Riley and Jane Colby of Dr Reed’s responses and suggested that Annette Brooke MP is updated.

+++
Forthcoming Symposium:

In September, Professor 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 series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, in Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014.

+++
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. Family Practice (2013) 30 (1): 76-87. Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

2. 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]

3. Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9.

+++
Caveats: 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 ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and Sorting codes currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and category omissions.

Questions raised on ICD-11 Beta draft re: Bodily distress disorder

Post #311 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Yh

+++

Screenshot: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version, July 31, 2014; Chapter 06 Mental and behavioural disorders: Bodily distress disorder.

+++
BDD310714

 
Joint Linerarization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics view selected; “show availability in main linearizations” view selected. Categories designated with three coloured key hover text: “In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource. Categories designated with single blue key hover text: “In Mortality and Morbidity.”

+++

Yesterday, I left the following comments and questions for TAG Mental Health Managing Editors via the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

In order to read the comment in situ you will need to be registered with the Beta drafting platform, logged in, then click on the grey and orange quote icon at the end of the category Title.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

Bodily distress disorder, severe

Comments on title

Suzy Chapman 2014-Jul-23 – 14:01 UTC

Definitions for three uniquely coded severities for Bodily distress disorder: Mild; Moderate; Severe, have recently been inserted into the Beta draft.

The Definition for Bodily distress disorder (BDD) and its three severity characterizations appears to be based on the BDD disorder descriptions in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper: Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders [1].

As conceptualized by the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG), BDD is proposed to replace the seven ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories F45.0 to F45.9, and F48.0 Neurasthenia.

The S3DWG’s BDD eliminates the requirement that symptoms be “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature; focuses on identification of positive psychobehavioural responses (excessive preoccupation with bodily symptoms, unreasonable illness fear, frequent or persistent healthcare utilization, activity avoidance for fear of damaging the body) in response to any (unspecific) persistent, distressing, single or multiple bodily symptom(s), resulting in significant impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance; makes no assumptions about aetiology, and in “[d]oing away with the unreliable assumption of its causality, the diagnosis of BDD does not exclude the presence of (…) a co-occurring physical health condition.”

The S3DWG’s BDD has no requirement for symptom counts, or for symptom patterns or symptom clusters from body or organ systems, which describes a disorder framework with good concordance with DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD).

According to the Beta draft, BDD’s three severity specifiers are proposed to be characterized on the basis of the extent to which responses to persistent, distressing bodily symptoms are perceived as excessive and on the degree of impairment, not on the basis of number of bodily symptoms and number of body or organ systems affected.

In comparison, psychobehavioural responses do not form part of Fink et al’s (2010) Bodily Distress Syndrome criteria. BDS’s criteria and two severities are based on symptom patterns from body systems (a BDS Modest, single-organ type and a BDS Severe, Multi-organ type).

In 2012, the Lam et al paper [2], set out emerging proposals for the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group’s (PCCG) recommendations for a “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS).”

The PCCG’s proposals described a disorder construct that had good concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome, drawing heavily on Fink et al’s criteria set. Although at that point, the PCCG proposed to incorporate some SSD-like psychobehavioural features within their tentative criteria. The PCCG appeared to be proposing a modified version of the Fink et al (2010) BDS construct.

In an Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D (June 2013) editorial [3], the co-authors advance the position that the forthcoming revision of ICD provides an opportunity to include BDS in a revised classification for primary care. According to this June 2013 editorial, the PCCG’s proposal for a modified BDS disorder construct, which it had earlier proposed to call “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS),” appears to have been revised to using the Fink et al “Bodily distress syndrome (BDS)” term.

The editorial implies that BDS (which subsumes the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” CFS, ME, IBS, Fibromyalgia, chronic pain disorder, MCS and some others, under a single, overarching disorder) was expected to be progressing, imminently, to ICD-11 field trials.

(A revision of the earlier BSS disorder name is not discussed within the editorial; nor whether any modifications to, or deviance from a “pure” BDS construct and criteria were being recommended for the purposes of field testing; nor are the alternative proposals of the S3DWG referenced or discussed; nor are the views of the Revision Steering Group on either set of proposals discussed.)

According to Lam et al (2012) and Ivbijaro and Goldberg (June 2013), the model proposed is that of “autonomic over-arousal,” which the authors consider may be responsible for most or all of the somatic symptoms that are experienced.

Again, compare with the S3DWG’s BDD construct, which makes no assumptions about aetiology and does not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition, whereas, for both Lam et al’s 2012 BSS and for Fink et al’s BDS, “If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.”

Potential for confusion between divergent disorder constructs:

The term “Bodily distress disorder” and the term “Bodily distress syndrome” (Fink et al, 2010), which is already operationalized in Denmark in research and clinical settings, are often seen being used interchangeably in the literature. For example, in this very recent editorial by Rief and Isaac [4]. Also in papers by Fink and others from 2007 onwards [5].

However, the S3DWG’s defining of a “Bodily distress disorder” construct has stronger conceptual alignment and criteria congruency with DSM-5’s SSD and poor conceptual and criteria congruency with Fink et al’s BDS. That SSD and BDS are very different concepts is acknowledged by Fink, Creed and Henningsen [6] [7].

Although the 2013 Ivbijaro and Goldberg editorial implies that Fink et al’s BDS construct was going forward to ICD-11 field testing, it is the S3DWG’s Bodily distress disorder name and construct that has been entered into the Beta draft – the construct that has stronger conceptual alignment with DSM-5’s SSD.

So the current proposals and intentions for field testing a potential replacement for the SDs remain unclear. This is severely hampering professional and consumer stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and input.

Four questions for TAG Mental Health Managing Editors:

1. Have the S3DWG sub working group, the PCCG working group and the Revision Steering Group reached consensus over a potential replacement framework and disorder construct for ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders and F48.0 Neurasthenia, and the ICD-10-PHC categories: F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms, and F48 Neurasthenia?

2. Which recommendations are being progressed to international field testing and does ICD-11 intend to release the protocol or other information on finalized characteristics, diagnostic guidelines, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc, that are planned to be used for the field tests and which would provide the level of detail lacking in the public version of the Beta drafting platform?

3. If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG working group’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with good concordance with the DSM-5 SSD construct, what is the rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder”?

4. Have the S3DWG, PCCG and Revision Steering Group given consideration to the significant potential for confusion if its replacement construct for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized but divergent construct and criteria set?

References:

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 [Full text behind paywall]

2. 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. Family Practice (2013) 30 (1): 76-87. Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

3. Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4. Full free text available on 2014/6/1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/pdf/MHFM-10-063.pdf

4. Rief W, Isaac M. The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Curr Opin Psychiatry (2014). Full free: http://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatry/Fulltext/2014/09000/The_future_of_somatoform_disorders___somatic.2.aspx

5. Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9.

6. Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

7. Discussions between Prof Francis Creed and Prof Per Fink during Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium presentations, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014, noted that Fink et al BDS and DSM-5 SSD are “very different concepts.”

+++

September symposium presentation on BDD:

In September, Professor 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 series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress in Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend this September symposia but would be pleased to hear from anyone who may be planning to attend.

Caveats: 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 ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and Sorting codes currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and category omissions.

+++
Further reading:

Dx Revision Watch Post: Definitions for three severities of “Bodily distress disorder” now inserted in ICD-11 Beta draft, July 19, 2014 http://wp.me/pKrrB-3X9

Dx Revision Watch Post: Editorial: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (Goldberg and ICD-11-PHC), June 3, 2014: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Uh

%d bloggers like this: