PVFS, ME and CFS in classification and terminology systems: notes for the future

Post #355 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4Yv

In 2002, I set up FreeMEuk — a Yahoo Group support and information exchange for patients with ME, CFS, and for carers, like myself. In 2007, I launched ME agenda to provide patients, carers and advocates with information, resources and commentary on the political issues affecting the lives of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) patients in the UK.

In January 2010, I created this site specifically to monitor and report on the development of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5, the development of the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 and on other classification and terminology systems. Where appropriate, I have galvanized stakeholders to participate in review and comment exercises or co-ordinated other forms of response.

Down the years, I’ve undertaken numerous short and long-term ad hoc projects, advised others on technical matters relating to classification and terminology systems, submitted and collaborated in the submission of proposals, briefed politicians and patient organizations and kept patient forums up to date with key developments.

Today I am retiring after 17 years of advocacy work.

My sites will remain online for the foreseeable future. Over the coming months I shall be carrying out some housekeeping on this site to remove or archive older, less relevant content.

Classification and terminology systems are going to need continued monitoring; where required, input from stakeholder groups — clinicians, researchers, health practitioners and professional body allies, social workers, disability lawyers and advocacy organizations will need to be co-ordinated.

Where no process for public stakeholder input currently exists, channels of direct communication will need to be opened with the agencies responsible for the development and management of these systems and collaborative dialogues established.

WHO, for example, ostensibly gives more consideration to evidence based submissions supported by rationales, international consensus and input from clinical and professional bodies — has scant regard for patient opinion and none whatsoever for petitions or mass mailings — the latter and similar types of “action” will only undermine the careful work and discourse that I and others have fostered.

All these systems will require regular monitoring:

 

DSM-5:

DSM-5 published in May 2013; it has an update process which reviews formal submissions for changes to criteria, related texts, assessment measures or corrections. DSM-5 also absorbs relevant coding changes in the annual FY releases of the U.S. specific ICD-10-CM. Approved proposals are posted for a 45 day stakeholder comment period. For example, in 2015, an edit in the text for Somatic symptom disorder¹ was approved for implementation and the revised text published in the DSM-5 Update Supplement.

1 DSM-5 Update: Supplement to DIAGNOSTC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FIFTH EDITION October 2018

 

ICD-10:

Member states using the WHO’s ICD-10 don’t all use the same version (or the most recent version), for example, NHS England currently mandates the use of ICD-10 Version: 2015, not Version: 2016. WHO has said that the final update to ICD-10 will be Version: 2019. This final release is understood to have been prepared but is not currently available on the ICD-10 Browser platform.

 

ICD-10-CM:

The U.S. uses ICD-10 for reporting mortality and developed a “clinical modification” of ICD-10 (called ICD-10-CM) for morbidity. A new release of ICD-10-CM is posted on the CDC website annually, in June.

There are two public NCHS/CDC Coordination and Maintenance Committee meetings a year through which proposals for changes to the ICD-10-CM can be submitted for discussion (in March and September) followed by a stakeholder comment period.

At the September 12, 2018 C & M Committee meeting, proposals for changes to the existing coding of R53.82 Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS; G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome, Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; and a second option for addition of the SEID term were presented for consideration and public comment¹. Whilst no changes for these codes were approved for implementation in the FY 2020 ICD-10-CM release, this topic will need continued monitoring as it may be revisited at a future C & M Committee meeting for presentation of revised proposals.

1 ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting, September 11-12, 2018, Diagnosis Agenda Part 2

Other country specific clinical modifications of ICD-10:

Around 25 member states are also using a modification of the WHO’s ICD-10. For example: Canada (ICD-10-CA); Germany (ICD-10-GM); Australia (ICD-10-AM). Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain use ICD-10-CM; Ireland and Slovenia use ICD-10-AM.

Countries using modifications of ICD-10 have individual update cycles and varying policies around public stakeholder input and review. Some countries post their Tabular List and Index modifications in the public domain; others are available only under licence, for example, Australia’s ICD-10-AM isn’t publicly available. The coding, hierarchy and chapter location of the PVFS, BME and CFS terms differs between some of the clinical modifications, while others remain consistent with the structure of the WHO’s ICD-10.

This table from the eHealth DSI Semantic Knowledge Base project compiles information provided from a number of member states on their use of ICD (or a modification of ICD) and their plans regarding potential future implementation of ICD-11. Information has been provided by: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxenbourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain: Current status of the use of ICD by eHDSI deploying countries (2018)

 

SNOMED CT:

SNOMED CT is a comprehensive clinical terminology system used in electronic patient health records. SNOMED CT maps to ICD-10 and there is a SNOMED CT to ICD-11 Mapping Project in progress.

SNOMED International has thirty-nine member countries. There is a SNOMED CT International Edition, for which two releases are issued per year (in January and July). There are a number of country specific national editions which release twice yearly updates on a staggered schedule. 12 of these national editions can be viewed on the SNOMED CT Browser platform.

SNOMED CT national editions absorb the changes in the most recent release of the International Edition but they can also include additional country specific terms. For example, the UK Edition has a unique Concept term: Medically unexplained symptoms (SCTID: 887761000000101). Prior to March 2019, the SNOMED CT Netherlands Edition had retained the term “neurasthenie” under Synonyms to Chronic fatigue syndrome, although the Concept term: Neurasthenia (SCTID: 268631001) and some associated codes had been retired from the International Edition and from all other national editions, some years ago. Following a request supported by a rationale, the term “neurasthenie” has now been removed from the Netherlands Edition.

The SNOMED CT Concept term for Chronic fatigue syndrome is SCTID 52702003 Chronic fatigue syndrome (disorder). Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; and Myalgic encephalomyelitis are included as Synonym terms.

Following a successful submission in February 2018 for the addition of a new parent, SCTID: 52702003 Chronic fatigue syndrome (disorder) has been assigned under parent: SCTID: 118940003 Disorder of nervous system (disorder) since the July 2018 release of the SNOMED CT International Edition. This change of parent has been incorporated into the national editions.

The International Edition and the national editions of SNOMED CT will need monitoring twice yearly for changes and additions to their content.

 

ICD-11:

On May 25, 2019, the 72nd World Health Assembly voted unanimously to adopt the ICD-11. The earliest date from which member states can start using the ICD-11 code sets for reporting data is January 1, 2022. Countries are beginning to evaluate the new edition and develop road maps but even early implementers are anticipated to take several years to prepare their health systems for migration. There is no mandatory implementation date and countries will transition to ICD-11 at their own pace and according to their resources and requirements. For some years to come, WHO will be accepting data reported using both ICD-10 and ICD-11 code sets.

ICD-11 update and maintenance: The current release of ICD-11 (Version 04/2019) on the Blue ICD-11 MMS platform is a stable release but an update and maintenance cycle is already in place.

The various ICD-11 Topic Advisory Groups and sub working groups, the Revision Steering Group and the Joint Task Force have all been sunsetted. WHO is now advised on how to process proposals for changes to ICD-11 by the Family of International Classifications Network (WHO-FIC); the Classifications and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC); the Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC); the Mortality and Morbidity Reference Groups; and the Functioning and Disability Reference Group.

Updates that impact on international reporting (the 4 and 5-digit structure of the stem codes) will be published every five years. Updates at a more detailed level can be published at annual rates. Additions to the ICD-11 index can be done on an ongoing basis. (There are currently in the region of 1200 unprocessed proposals waiting to be processed, with new proposals being submitted daily by WHO, professional bodies and other stakeholders.)

PVFS, BME, CFS: In a decision supported by the MSAC and CSAC committees, WHO rightly rejected the proposal of Dr Tarun Dua/Topic Advisory Group Neurology to delete the G93.3 legacy terms from the Diseases of the nervous system chapter and reclassify these terms in the Symptoms, signs chapter, under Symptoms, signs or clinical findings of the musculoskeletal system.

All three terms have been retained under their legacy chapter, under parent class: Other disorders of the nervous system, with 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome retained as the Concept Title. Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; and chronic fatigue syndrome are both specified as Inclusion terms. Reciprocal exclusions for MG22 Fatigue were submitted for and approved.

The Proposal Mechanism platform for ICD-11 will need constant surveillance: there are currently no unprocessed proposals pending review for PVFS, BME and CFS. To date, WHO has rejected proposals for deprecation of the word “Benign” from Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis. This will need pursuing.

 

BDD: A proposal submitted by a third party in April 2017 for Deletion of 6C20 Bodily distress disorder has remained under review with the CSAC committee. According to WHO admins, in June 2019: “This proposal is being sent to MSAC to ensure the precedent decision on this issue still stands. Team3 WHO 2019-Jun-12 – 16:40 UTC”

(In February 2019, my own recommendations for 6C20 Bodily distress disorder had been marked as rejected by a different WHO admin team, with the comment: “This proposal has been extensively discussed by WHO and its advisory committees. There is no new scientific evidence to support this proposal and it will not be further processed. Team 2 WHO 2019-Feb-26 – 23:04 UTC)

I have requested that in any ongoing CSAC/MSAC deliberations in relation to the Bodily distress disorder category that these previously rejected recommendations are reviewed and reconsidered, including submissions for exclusions for PVFS, BME and CFS under 6C20 Bodily distress disorder.

See: Table: Status of ICD-11 processed proposals, Suzy Chapman, April 2019, for more information on approved and rejected proposals.

 

Clinical modifications of ICD-11:

It is understood that WHO’s intention is to limit development of national modifications and that policies around the licensing of ICD-11 are still being formulated. Countries developing modifications of ICD-11 will need surveillance.

See post World Health Assembly adopts ICD-11: When will member states start using the new edition? for more information on country plans.

See Presentation slides #36-38 for more information on licensing and the development of country modifications: Insights into the Next Revision: Like Texas, Everything is Bigger in ICD-11, Kathy Giannangelo, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS, FHIMA, Texas Health Information Management Association.

 

ICD-11 and the CDDG guideline for mental disorders:

For ICD-11, the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has developed the “Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders” (an equivalent publication to ICD-10’s “Blue Book”).

The CDDG provides expanded clinical descriptions, essential (required) features, boundaries with other disorders and normality, differential diagnoses, additional features, culture-related features and codes for all mental and behavioural disorders commonly encountered in clinical psychiatry; it is intended for mental health professionals and for general clinical, educational and service use.

WHO has said it plans to release the CDDG “as soon as possible” after WHA’s adoption of ICD-11. But it remains unclear whether the CDDG has been finalized or if it will be released this month, later this year or next year. See this post Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders for more information.

Whilst clinicians have been able to register to review and provide feedback, no draft texts for the CDDG have been made available for public stakeholder scrutiny and comment and I have not had access, for example, to the most recent draft for the clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder.

 

ICD-11 and the ICD-11 PHC:

Also under development is the WHO’s ICD-11 PHC — a clinical guideline written in simpler language to assist non-mental health specialists, especially primary care practitioners and non medically trained health workers, and also intended for use in low resource settings and low- to middle-income countries, with the diagnosis and management of common mental disorders. It comprises 27 mental disorders and contains no other disorders or diseases. Like the ICD-10 PHC (1996), this revised diagnostic and management guideline will not be a mandatory classification for member states.

For the mandatory core ICD-11 classification, WHO is going forward with the SSD-like Bodily distress disorder (BDD).

But the ICD-11 PHC is proposed to include a disorder category called “Bodily Stress Syndrome (BSS)” that has been adapted from the Fink et al (2010) Bodily distress syndrome (BDS). See Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems, July 2018.

Under exclusions and differential diagnoses for BSS, certain psychiatric and general medical diagnoses have to be excluded but CFS, ME; IBS; and FM appear not to be specified as exclusions. See this post Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders for more information.

It’s not known when this guideline is expected to be finalized and made available for download. The ICD-11 PHC has not been developed on a publicly accessible platform and draft texts are not available for public stakeholder review and comment. This non mandatory 27 mental disorder guideline needs close scrutiny.

 

ICPC-3:

The WONCA developed and WHO endorsed, International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) is under revision for ICPC-3.

ICPC-2 is available in 34 countries; used in primary care in 27 countries and is mandatory in 6 EU countries, eg the Netherlands. The content of ICPC-3 will be linked to relevant classifications, such as ICD-10, ICD-11, ICF, ICHI, DSM-5, clinical terminologies such as SNOMED-CT, but also to previous versions of ICPC.

The draft content for ICPC-3 is not being developed on a publicly accessible platform and it’s unclear whether any form of stakeholder review will be undertaken or at what point.

Caveat: This ICPC-3 roadmap on an ICPC-3 Working Group platform may have been revised since it was posted: ICPC-3 Roadmap Milestones August 28, 2018.

Dr Marianne Rosendal (Aarhus University), who has published with Prof Per Fink, is the European representative on WONCA’s International Classification Committee and a member of the revision committee for ICPC-2, as is the U.S.’s, Dr Michael Klinkman. ICPC-2 meeting summary documents dating from 2010/2011 indicate that Dr Rosendal has discussed the potential for inclusion of a Bodily distress syndrome or similar disorder concept in the ICPC-3. Prof Per Fink is likely to be lobbying hard for its inclusion. The development of ICPC-3 will need very close monitoring.

 

Resources:

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018

Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018

Post: ICD-11 implementation package, June 06, 2019

Post: World Health Assembly adopts ICD-11: When will member states start using the new edition? June 17, 2019

Post: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders, June 28, 2019

Insights into the Next Revision: Like Texas, Everything is Bigger in ICD-11, Kathy Giannangelo, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS, FHIMA, Texas Health Information Management Association

Advertisements

Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Post #354 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4IQ

The ICD-10 “Blue Book” and “Green Book”

In the World Health Organization’s ICD-10 Tabular List there are no disease or disorder descriptions, criteria or diagnostic guidelines in any chapters other than the brief description texts for disorders coded within Chapter V Mental and behavioural disorders.

The WHO describes these brief description texts as suitable for use by coders or clerical workers and to serve as a reference point for compatibility with other classifications. These brief texts are not recommended for use by mental health professionals.

Two companion publications were developed for use with ICD-10’s Chapter V which expand on these brief texts and provide clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. These publications are available as license free downloads:

The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (aka the “Blue Book”):​

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/bluebook.pdf

intended for mental health professionals for general clinical, educational and service use.​

 

The ICD-10 Diagnostic criteria for research (aka the “Green Book”):​

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

produced for research purposes and designed to be used in conjunction with the Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines “Blue Book.”

 

A survey of nearly 5,000 psychiatrists in 44 countries sponsored by the WHO and the World Psychiatric Association found that 70% of respondents mostly used the ICD-10 classification system in their daily clinical work compared to 23% of practitioners primarily using the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV [1].

 

ICD-11 and the CDDG

For ICD-11, the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has developed the “Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.”

The CDDG provides expanded clinical descriptions, essential (required) features, boundaries with other disorders and normality, differential diagnoses, additional features, culture-related features and codes for all mental and behavioural disorders commonly encountered in clinical psychiatry; it is intended for mental health professionals and for general clinical, educational and service use.

The CDDG does not provide diagnostic criteria. The essential features are less rigid than DSM-5’s criteria sets and allow practitioners more flexibility to use clinical discretion when making a diagnosis.

 

CDDG review process

The CDDG review process has been undertaken via the Global Clinical Practice Network.

Qualified clinicians who signed up to participate in the CDDG guideline review process have been able to review and provide feedback on the draft content. No draft texts have been made available for public stakeholder scrutiny and comment and I have not had access, for example, to the most recent draft for the clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder.

This paper in the February 2019 edition of World Psychiatry (Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders) describes major changes to the structure of the ICD‐11 classification of mental disorders as compared to ICD‐10; discusses new categories added for ICD‐11 and presents rationales for their inclusion; and describes important changes that have been made in each ICD‐11 disorder grouping [2].

What the paper does not give is a firm release date for the CDDG — stating only that the WHO will publish the CDDG as soon as possible following approval of the overall system by the World Health Assembly (WHA).

Member states approved the draft resolution to adopt ICD-11 at the 72nd World Health Assembly, in May 2019. Endorsement takes effect from January 01, 2022, which is the earliest date from which member states can begin reporting data using the new ICD-11 code sets.

Extract from Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders:

Disorders of bodily distress and bodily experience

ICD‐11 disorders of bodily distress and bodily experience encompass two disorders: bodily distress disorder and body integrity dysphoria. ICD‐11 bodily distress disorder replaces ICD‐10 somatoform disorders and also includes the concept of ICD‐10 neurasthenia. ICD‐10 hypochondriasis is not included and instead is reassigned to the OCRD [Ed: Obsessive‐compulsive and related disorders] grouping.

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by the presence of bodily symptoms that are distressing to the individual and an excessive attention directed toward the symptoms, which may be manifest by repeated contact with health care providers69. The disorder is conceptualized as existing on a continuum of severity and can be qualified accordingly (mildmoderate or severe) depending on the impact on functioning. Importantly, bodily distress disorder is defined according to the presence of essential features, such as distress and excessive thoughts and behaviours, rather than on the basis of absent medical explanations for bothersome symptoms, as in ICD‐10 somatoform disorders.

*Embedded links to the ICD-11 Orange Maintenance Platform disorder descriptions are not included in the paper.

DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder is listed under Synonyms to ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder and indexed to 6C20.Z Bodily distress disorder, unspecified.

The CDDG is expected to be published as a licence free download. When the WHO has released the CDDG, I will update this post.

 

This Letter to the Editor published in the June 2019 edition of World Psychiatry (Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD-11 chapters related to mental and sexual health) summarizes common themes of the submissions for the mental disorder categories that generated the greatest response [3].

Extract:

A majority of submissions regarding bodily distress disorder were critical, but were often made by the same individuals (N=8). Criticism mainly focused on conceptualization (48%; κ=0.64) and the disorder name (43%; κ=0.91). Use of a diagnostic term that is closely associated with the differently conceptualized bodily distress syndrome5 was seen as problematic. One criticism was that the definition relies too heavily on the subjective clinical decision that patients’ attention directed towards bodily symptoms is “excessive”. A number of comments (17%; κ=0.62) expressed concern that this would lead to patients being classified as mentally disordered and preclude them from receiving appropriate biologically-oriented care. Some contributors submitted proposals for changes to the definition (30%; κ=0.89). Others opposed inclusion of the disorder altogether (26%; κ=0.88), while no submission (κ=1) expressed support for inclusion. The WHO decided to retain bodily distress disorder as a diagnostic category6 and addressed concerns by requiring in the CDDG the presence of additional features, such as significant functional impairment.

 

Note: “Use of a diagnostic term that is closely associated with the differently conceptualized bodily distress syndrome5 was seen as problematic.”

Whilst it is welcomed that this specific concern has been acknowledged within this Letter to the Editor, I have drawn to the authors’ attention that WHO/ICD Revision has repeatedly failed to respond to requests to provide a rationale for its re-purposing of a diagnostic term that is already strongly associated with the Fink et al (2010) Bodily distress syndrome*, despite provision of examples from the literature clearly demonstrating that these two terms have been used interchangeably by researchers and practitioners, since 2007 [4].

The potential for confusion and conflation of these differently conceptualized disorder constructs was acknowledged by the WHO’s Dr Geoffrey Reed, in 2015. However, there has been no discussion of this potential in any of the S3DWG working group’s progress reports and field trial evaluations. If the WHO is not willing to reconsider and remedy this problem, there is the expectation that a rationale for going forward with the Bodily distress disorder term is provided for clinical and public stakeholders.

*Operationalized in Denmark and beyond, BDS is differently conceptualized to ICD-11’s BDD diagnostic construct: BDS has very different criteria/essential features, based on physical symptom patterns or clusters from organ systems; psychobehavioural responses to symptoms do not form part of the BDS criteria; BDS requires the symptoms to be “medically unexplained”; is inclusive of a different patient population to ICD-11’s BDD, and crucially, is considered by its authors to capture myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS and fibromyalgia patients under a single, unifying BDS diagnosis.

As an unprocessed proposal is currently under review with the CSAC/MSAC committees I have requested that earlier submissions, which were marked as rejected in February 2019 with no adequate rationale for dismissing the concerns raised within them, are reconsidered and that the WHO responds to three specific concerns:

a) its re-purposing of a disorder term already in use interchangeably for a differently conceptualized disorder construct;

b) the potential difficulties of maintaining disorder construct integrity within and beyond ICD-11 and the implications for clinical utility, data reporting and statistical analysis;

c) the requirement for adding exclusions under BDD for Concept Title 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome and its inclusion terms, to mitigate confusion/conflation with the Fink et al (2007, 2010) Bodily distress syndrome.

 

Bodily distress disorder in SNOMED CT

The SNOMED CT Concept term SCTID: 723916001: Bodily distress disorder was added to the July 2017 release of the SNOMED CT International Edition.

SNOMED International’s classification leads confirmed that the term had been added by the team working on the SNOMED CT and ICD-11 MMS Mapping Project as “an exact match for the ICD-11 term, Bodily distress disorder.”

In ICD-11, Bodily distress disorder has specifiers for three degrees of severity: Mild BDD; Moderate BDD; and Severe BDD, which are each assigned a unique code and a discrete description/characterization text.

It was submitted that including the three ICD-11 BDD severities might help clinicians and coders distinguish between the SNOMED CT/ICD-11 Bodily distress disorder concept term and the similarly named, but differently conceptualized, Bodily distress syndrome (Fink et al 2010), which has two severities.

A request for addition of the three BDD severities was submitted and approved in early 2018 and Mild BDD; Moderate BDD; and Severe BDD were added as three discretely coded for Children concepts for the July 2018 release of the International Edition and subsequently absorbed into the various national editions.

 

ICD-11 PHC

The ICD-11 CDDG should not be confused with the ICD-11 PHC.

Since 2012, I have been reporting on the parallel development of the ICD-11 Primary Health Care (PHC) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Mental Disorders (ICD-11 PHC).

The ICD-11 PHC is a revision of the Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version. 1996.

ICD-11 PHC is a clinical tool written in simpler language to assist non-mental health specialists in primary care settings and non medically trained health workers, and also intended for use in low resource settings and in low- to middle-income countries.

It comprises 27 mental disorders considered to be most clinically relevant in primary care and low resource settings. (It is a misnomer to refer to the ICD-11 PHC as the “Primary Care version of ICD-11” since it contains just 27 mental disorders and no general medical diseases or conditions.)

It is important to note that like the ICD-10 PHC, this revised diagnostic and management guideline won’t be mandatory for use by member states, although the WHO hopes this revised edition will have greater clinical utility than the ICD-10 PHC (1996).

The WHO intends to make the ICD-11 PHC publication, once completed, free to download by anyone. There is currently no date available for its projected finalization or release.

The revision is the responsibility of the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse advised by an external advisory group — the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) which is chaired by Prof Sir David Goldberg*; Vice-chairs: Dr Michael Klinkman and WHO’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed.

*Prof Sir David Goldberg also chaired the working group for the development of ICD-10 PHC (1996). Dr Michael Klinkman is a GP who represents WONCA (World Organization of Family Doctors) and current convenor of WONCA’s International Classification Committee (WICC) that is responsible for the development and update of the WHO endorsed, ICPC-2 (International Classification of Primary Care).

The full draft texts for the 27 mental disorder categories proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11 PHC have not been made available for public scrutiny, but a number of progress papers, field trial evaluations and presentations have been published since 2010 [5-8].

25 of the 27 mental disorder categories proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11 PHC have equivalence with mental disorder classes within the core ICD-11’s Chapter 06.

ICD-11 PHC is proposed to include a disorder category called “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” which replaces ICD-10 PHC’s “F45 Unexplained somatic complaints/medically unexplained symptoms” and “F48 Neurasthenia” categories.

This proposed “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” diagnosis has been adapted from the Fink et al (2010) Bodily distress syndrome (BDS). “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” does not have direct equivalence to a diagnostic construct in the core ICD-11.

The ICD-11 PHC’s “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” requires at least 3 persistent, medically unexplained symptoms, over time, of cardio-respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, or general symptoms of tiredness and exhaustion, that result in significant distress or impairment.

Under exclusions and differential diagnoses for BSS, certain psychiatric and general medical diagnoses have to be excluded but CFS, ME; IBS; and FM appear not to be specified as exclusions. So this (non mandatory) 27 mental disorder guideline needs very close scrutiny.

For the mandatory core ICD-11 classification, the WHO is going forward with the differently conceptualized, Bodily distress disorder (BDD), which has close alignment with DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder.*

*See: Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018.

 

If ICD-11 PHC goes forward with its proposed BSS category, there will be all these diagnostic constructs in play:

Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-5; under Synonyms to BDD in the core ICD-11)
Bodily distress disorder (core ICD-11; SNOMED CT)
Bodily stress syndrome (ICD-11 PHC guideline for 27 mental disorders)
Bodily distress syndrome (Fink et al 2010, operationalized in Denmark and beyond)

plus the existing ICD-10 and SNOMED CT Somatoform disorders categories and their equivalents in ICPC-2.

 

References:

1 Reed GM, Correia J, Esparza P, Saxena S, Maj M (2011). The WPA-WHO global survey of psychiatrists’ attitudes towards mental disorders classification. World Psychiatry, 10, 118–131. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00034.x

2 Reed GM, First MB, Kogan CS, et al. Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. World Psychiatry, 2019;18(1):3–19. doi:10.1002/wps.20611
Html: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313247/
PDF: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313247/pdf/WPS-18-3.pdf

3 Fuss J, Lemay K, Stein DJ, Briken P, Jakob R, Reed GM and Kogan CS. (2019). Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health. World Psychiatry, 18: 233-235. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20635

4 Chapman S. Proposal and rationale for Deletion of the Entity Bodily distress disorder. Proposal submitted via ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism, March 02, 2017.

5 T P Lam, D P Goldberg, A C Dowell, S Fortes, J K Mbatia, F A Minhas, M S Klinkman. Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study, Family Practice, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 76–87, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms037

6 MASTER PROTOCOL Depression, Anxiety and Somatic Symptoms in Global Primary Care Settings: A Field Study for the ICD-11-PHC Version 2 for WHO Research Ethics Review Committee.
http://www.psychiatryresearchtrust.co.uk/protocols/WorldHealth14.pdf

7 Fortes, Sandra, Ziebold, Carolina, Reed, Geoffrey M, Robles-Garcia, Rebeca, Campos, Monica R, Reisdorfer, Emilene, Prado, Ricardo, Goldberg, David, Gask, Linda, & Mari, Jair J.. (2019). Studying ICD-11 Primary Health Care bodily stress syndrome in Brazil: do many functional disorders represent just one syndrome? Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 41(1), 15-21. Epub October 11, 2018.
Html: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0003
PDF: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v41n1/1516-4446-rbp-1516444620180003.pdf

8 Presentation: Rosendale, M (2017). MUS becomes Bodily Stress Syndrome in the ICD-11 for primary care

 

Resources:

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018

Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems

Post #340 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4oG

We continue to see some confusion amongst ME and CFS patients, advocates and commentators around classification systems — what they are used for, whether they are mandatory for WHO member states, which terms are included in which systems and which countries use which versions.

In May, Suzy Chapman (DxRevisionWatch.com) and Mary Dimmock prepared a document to assist stakeholders in navigating the complexities of the disease classification and terminology systems.

 

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems

The purpose of this document is to summarize the key classification and terminology systems that are used internationally to capture information about disorders and diseases for the purposes of global mortality and morbidity tracking. These systems are also used for medical records, including EMRs (electronic medical records), in primary and secondary care.

Thumbnail

The most recent version of this document can be downloaded here Version 3 | July 2018

 

Document revision history:

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems Version 1

May 2018


 

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems Version 2

June 2018 – Updated to reflect release of an advance preview version of ICD-11 on June 18, 2018.


 

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems Version 3

July 2018 – Revised for clarity.

In Versions 1 and 2, we stated that the ICPC-2 Danish extension [1] included the term, Bodily distress syndrome. The document in reference [2] clarifies that whilst not included in the Danish extension, a diagnosis of functional disorder or a diagnosis of bodily distress syndrome can be coded for using the ICPC-2 P75 Somatoform forstyrrelse (Somatoform disorder) term.

1 ICPC-2 Danish extension
2 Funktionelle lidelser (Functional Disorders), Clinical guideline for general practice, Danish College of General Practitioners, 2013 (English translation, 2016). Page 8: What is the patient’s illness called?

 

Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems

Post #338 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4ni

The World Health Organization (WHO) released the next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) on June 18.

WHO news release.

ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS) version 2018 is an “advance preview” that will allow countries to plan for implementation, prepare translations and begin training health professionals.

No countries will be ready to transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11 for several years. The new edition is scheduled to be presented at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2019 for adoption by Member States, but WHA endorsement won’t come into effect until January 1, 2022.

After that date, Member States can begin using the new edition for data reporting but there is no mandatory implementation date and for a period of time, the WHO will be collecting data recorded using both ICD-10 and the new ICD-11 code sets.

I’ll be posting key links and information on the release of this “advance preview” in future posts. In the meantime, here’s the current schedule:

 

Bodily distress disorder

For the main edition of ICD-11, most of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders and Neurasthenia have been replaced with a single new diagnostic category called Bodily distress disorder [1].

The Bodily distress disorder term was added to the ICD-11 drafting platform in early 2012 and has been the only disorder construct under consideration for the main edition of ICD-11 [2][3].

 

SSD? BDD? BDS? BSS?

We are still seeing a good deal of confusion between ICD-11’s defining of Bodily distress disorder (BDD) and Per Fink’s Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) disorder construct [4][5].

To assist stakeholders in navigating the complexities of nomenclature and classification, Dx Revision Watch and Mary Dimmock have prepared a document comparing the key features of:

DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder (SSD)

ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder (BDD)

Fink et al. (2010) Bodily distress syndrome (BSD)

Bodily stress syndrome (BSS), as proposed for the ICD-11 PHC

 

You can download a copy of the comparison table and notes, here:

Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems

Version 1 | July 2018

Download PDF

https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/comparison-of-ssd-bdd-bds-bss-in-classification-systems-v1.pdf

 

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

2 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]

3 ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS) 2018 Release, Version for preparing implementation. Accessed July 20, 2018 https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f767044268

4 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]

5 Syndromes of bodily distress or functional somatic syndromes – Where are we heading. Lecture on the occasion of receiving the Alison Creed award 2017, Fink, Per. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Volume 97, 127 – 130
https://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(17)30445-2/fulltext
Lecture slides: http://www.eapm2017.com/images/site/abstracts/PLENARY_Prof_FINK.pdf

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.

%d bloggers like this: