An edited version of this report is scheduled for publication in the March edition of the ME Global Chronicle.
For ICD-11, most of the ICD-10 F45 Somatoform disorders categories and F48.0 Neurasthenia have been replaced by a single new category called “Bodily distress disorder” (BDD).
Although this sounds like it might be very similar to Per Fink’s Bodily distress syndrome (BDS), ICD-11’s BDD is conceptually closely aligned with the DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder (SSD).
For ICD-11, Somatic symptom disorder is listed under Synonyms under BDD but is not coded as an inclusion term.
Both the WHO and Prof Fink have clarified that as defined for ICD-11, BDD is a conceptually different disorder construct — ICD-11’s BDD and Fink’s BDS are differently defined and characterised, have very different criteria and are inclusive of different patient sets.
For ICD-11, the BDD diagnosis requires both the presence of one or more chronic, distressing bodily symptoms (which can be “medically unexplained” or caused or exacerbated by a general medical condition) and “excessive attention” or “disproportionate or maladaptive” thoughts, feelings or behavioural responses to these symptoms. BDD can capture a percentage of patients with ME, CFS or other general medical diseases or conditions — if the clinician considers the patient also meets the disorder description for application of an additional mental disorder diagnosis of BDD.
In contrast, Fink’s BDS disorder construct requires physical “symptom patterns” or “clusters” from one or more body systems; the symptoms must be “medically unexplained” and there is no requirement for emotional or behavioural responses to meet the criteria. If the symptoms can be better explained by a general medical disease, they cannot be labelled “BDS”. But crucially, Fink’s BDS is inclusive of ME, CFS, IBS and FM and subsumes these under a single, unifying diagnosis.
The terms “bodily distress disorder” and “bodily distress syndrome” have been used synonymously since 2007. Not surprisingly, researchers, academics and practitioners are already confusing and conflating ICD-11’s new “Bodily distress disorder” with Fink’s “Bodily distress syndrome”.
Although BDD can potentially be applied to patients with chronic, distressing symptoms associated with any general medical disease or condition, patients with a diagnosis of ME or CFS (or who are waiting for a diagnosis) may be particularly vulnerable to misdiagnosis with BDD or misapplication of an additional BDD mental disorder diagnosis, as a “bolt-on” to their existing diagnosis.
However, the need for adding exclusions for PVFS, ME and CFS under ICD-11’s BDD to mitigate the risk of misdiagnosis or misapplication had not been acknowledged or accepted by the WHO.
In my report in the December edition of the ME Global Chronicle, I mentioned that the proposals submitted by Chapman & Dimmock (March 2017) and by Lily Chu MD on behalf of IACFS/ME (March 2017) for exclusions for the three 8E49 terms under 6C20 Bodily distress disorder and for exclusion of 6C20 Bodily distress disorder under the 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome concept title had been rejected.
In December 2019, I submitted a new proposal for exclusions for the three 8E49 terms under 6C20 Bodily distress disorder, supported by a new rationale text.
I am very pleased to inform you that in January the WHO approved and implemented my proposal.
The WHO Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental 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. This companion publication is intended for mental health professionals and for general clinical, educational and service use.
The WHO has said it planned to release the CDDG “as soon as possible” after WHA’s adoption of ICD-11. But it remains unclear whether the CDDG has been finalised or if it will be released later this year or next year.
Whilst clinicians have been able to register to review and provide feedback on the drafts, 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 full clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder.
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.
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 WHO2019-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 WHO2019-Feb-26 – 23:04 UTC“)
On December 02, 2019 I submitted a new proposal and rational for adding exclusions for PVFS; BME; and CFS under 6C20 Bodily distress disorder. The WHO approved and implemented my proposal on January 17, 2020.
For more information on approved and rejected proposals see: Status of ICD-11 processed proposals v5 (updated to reflect implementation of exclusions under BDD).
Clinical modifications of ICD-11:
It is understood that the WHO would prefer to limit the 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
As reported in Post # 345, the SNOMED CT Concept SCTID: 192439005 Neurasthenia (disorder) and its associated SCTID Concept terms were retired (Inactivated) from SNOMED CT’s International Edition and from national editions some years ago.
However, the Netherlands Edition retained the term neurasthenie under the SCTID: 52702003chronischevermoeidheidssyndroom (CVS) Synonyms list. The neurasthenie term was exclusive to the Netherlands Edition, was assigned to the SCTID: 52702003 CVS code, and designated as an “Acceptable” Synonym term for CVS in the Netherlands Dutch language reference set.
Screenshot: SNOMED CT Netherlands Edition release for September 30, 2018:
Screenshot: SNOMED CT Netherlands Edition release for September 30, 2018:
Details tab:
Request for removal of the neurasthenie term:
In October 2018, a Netherlands advocate approached Pim Volkert (Terminology Co-ordinator, Nictiz, and lead for the Netherlands SNOMED CT National Release Centre) with a request and rationale for consideration of removal of the neurasthenie term, for consistency with SNOMED CT International Edition and with the WHO’s ICD-10, which specifically excludes G93.3 from F48.0 Neurasthenia.
This request and accompanying rationale was considered and promptly accepted for implementation in the March 31, 2019 release of the Netherlands Edition.
This approved content change has now been incorporated into the March 2019 release:
Select the specific edition required (eg the International Edition or one of the National Editions).
Look under Options on the left of the Search box.
Select:
“Status: Active and inactive concepts” from the Options dropdown.
Enter a search term into the Search box.
In the Matches list, Inactive concepts will display on a light pink ground.
Click on a term to display the historical Concept Details panel associated with that specific term (which will also display on a pink ground in the box under Parents in the Concept Details panel).
So although retired or “Inactive” terms can still be searched for within the SNOMED CT terminology browser, they are identified as Inactive by their pink ground.
The third stakeholder review and comment period on proposals for revisions to categories and criteria for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, to be known as DSM-5, was launched on May 4.
Following closure of this final public review, revisions made by the DSM-5 Work Groups to criteria and disorder descriptions subsequent to June 15 are subject to embargo.
Final criteria sets and accompanying texts won’t be released until the DSM-5 is published, next year.
The release of DSM-5 is slated for May 18-22, 2013, during the APA’s 2013 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, CA.
A couple of days ago, the third draft was removed in its entirety from the DSM-5 Development website.
In advance of release of DSM-5, the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association has issued a promotional flyer for its DSM-5 CORE TITLES:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)
American Psychiatric Association
Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM-5
American Psychiatric Association
DSM-5 Clinical Cases
John W. Barnhill, M.D., David J. Kupfer, M.D., and Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H.
DSM-5 Guidebook
Donald W. Black, M.D., and Jon E. Grant, M.D., M.P.H., J.D.
Study Guide to DSM-5
Laura Weiss Roberts, M.D., M.A.
DSM-5 Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
Michael B. First, M.D.
DSM-5 Self-Exam Questions
Test Questions for the Diagnostic Criteria
Philip R. Muskin, M.D.
Note that the flyer states:
• New disorders include, but are not limited to, somatic symptom disorder, hoarding disorder, mild and major neurocognitive disorder, anxiety illness disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder…
According to DSM-5 draft three, the proposed name for the disorder that replaces “Hypochondriasis” in DSM-IV is intended to be “J01 Illness Anxiety Disorder” not “anxiety illness disorder,” as the flyer has it. It is to be hoped that proofs of the manual will be subject to closer scrutiny than this flyer evidently underwent.
The field trials provide new data for the ongoing review of proposed diagnostic criteria for DSM-5
Three papers discussing the results of the DSM-5 field trials were posted October 30 by AJP in Advance. These papers describe the methods and results of the 23 diagnoses that were assessed…
and from Task Force Chair, David J. Kupfer…
Huffington Post Blog
David J. Kupfer, MD | Chair, DSM-5 Task Force | November 7, 2012
Two years ago this month, APA announced the start of field trials that would subject proposed diagnostic criteria for the future DSM-5 to rigorous, empirically sound evaluation across diverse clinical settings. And now, as the first comprehensive analyses of that effort are published, what’s clear is just how well the field trials did their job…
Far from being a ringing endorsement, the field trials set off fresh alarm bells
Christopher Lane, Ph.D. | November 11, 2012
“What’s the chance that a second, equally expert diagnosis will agree with the first, making a particular diagnosis reliable?” asks David Kupfer, chair of the DSM-5 task force, of the decidedly mixed results of the DSM-5 field trials. First off, are you sure you really want to know?…
dx revision watch 