|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
EVALUATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSIAN
GULF COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM
9
patients in the CCEP had one or more psychiatric diagnoses 11% with
depression and 5% with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (DoD, l995d).
Since the goal is for most patients to receive a definitive diagnosis in Phase I,
but the psychiatric evaluation is mandated only for patients in Phase II, the
committee recommends that the DoD develop explicit guidelines for the
identification of patients in Phase I who would benefit from a psychiatric
evaluation. This will help ensure adequate psychiatric resources for both the
initial evaluation and long-term follow-up care.
Primary care physicians should be alerted to the relatively high degree of
prevalence of these psychiatric disorders in this population. Two methods that
have been proposed by RMC physicians to expedite the scheduling of psychiatric
evaluations would be (1) the more frequent use of civilian psychiatrists and (2)
consideration of using Ph.D.-level psychologists, as well as psychiatrists, when
necessary.
ANALYSIS AND INTrERPRETATION
OF THE RESULTS OF TO CCEP
The DoD has released a series of reports that have summarized the results
of the medical evaluations of the CCEP patients. The DoD has stated, "The
large size of the CCEP cohort and the thoroughness of the CCEP examinations
provide considerable clinical insight for understanding the nature of illnesses and
health complaints experienced by this group of veterans" (DoD, l995d). The
DoD's most recent report, however, recommends caution in the generalization
of the interpretation of the CCEP results: "However, self-selection of patients,
differential eligibility, recall bias, inability to validate self-reported exposures,
and lack of an appropriate control group limit the generalization of these
findings to other Gulf War veterans" (DoD, l995d).
Four major areas related to the analysis and interpretation of the results of
the CCEP deserve attention: (1) the symptoms and diagnoses in the CCEP
population; (2) clinical evidence for a new, unique Persian Gulf Syndrome; (3)
the potential relationship of illnesses in some CCEP patients to service in the
Persian Gulf; and (4) a comparison of the CCEP population with other
populations.
Symptoms and Diagnoses in the CCEP Population
The CCEP patients report a very broad range of symptoms. The most
recent DoD report on 10,020 participants summarizes the frequencies of the
chief complaints and all complaints for these patients (DoD, l995d). The most
common symptoms are fatigue, joint pain, headache, rash/dermatitis, and
OCR for page 10
10 EVALUATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSIAN
GULF COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM
memory loss. Only two symptoms were given as the chief complaint by 10%
or more of the patients: fatigue (11 %) and joint pain (11 %) (DoD, l995d).
The median number of diagnoses per patient is three. The CCEP computer
database records seven diagnoses. For a patient with three diagnoses, three
different aspects of one organ system could be involved (e.g., three unrelated
musculoskeletal problems) or three or more different organ systems (an extreme
example would be diabetes, which is only one diagnosis but which affects
several organs). The diagnoses in the first 10,020 CCEP patients are stratified
by major International Classification of Disease, 9th edition (ICD-9), codes, in
the recent DoD report (DoD, 1995d). There are only two major disease groups
or organ systems in which 10% or more of the 10,020 patients have a primary
diagnosis. The primary diagnosis is the one disease that the CCEP physician
judges to be the most important or critical for each patient (DoD, 1995a).
These two groups are psychological conditions (19%) and musculoskeletal
conditions (16%~. Similarly, there are only two major disease groups or organ
systems in which 25% or more of the 10,020 patients have any diagnosis
(primary or secondary). These are psychological conditions (37%) and
musculoskeletal conditions (45%~. Beyond this, the primary diagnoses among
the first 10,020 patients do not appear to be concentrated in any single organ
system.
Many different combinations of diagnoses exist among the 10,020 patients,
and relatively few individuals have the same combinations of diseases. The
CCEP physicians presented summaries of several case histories over the course
of the three IOM meetings. Most of these individual cases had two or more
discrete diagnoses, often in two or more different organ systems. Examples of
two typical patient presentations might be (1) PTSD and asthma or (2) migraine
headaches, hypothyroidism, and osteoarthritis of the left knee. In most of these
cases, it was unlikely that the two or more diseases were different manifestations
of the same underlying pathological process. The corn~nittee found no evidence
that the DoD has been trying to avoid reaching a single "unifying" diagnosis
when a plausible one was available. A "unifying" diagnosis is defined here as
a single diagnosis that could explain most or all of a patient's symptoms.
One interpretation of the CCEP results is that the signs and symptoms in
many patients can be explained by well-recognized conditions that are readily
diagnosable and treatable. The committee concludes that this is a more likely
interpretation than the interpretation that a high proportion of the CCEP patients
are suffering from a unique, previously unknown "mystery disease." By
providing more detailed information on specific diagnoses in its future reports,
the DoD might help correct the impressions among the general public that exist
about the high degree of prevalence of a "mystery disease" or a new, unique
"Persian Gulf Syndrome."
OCR for page 11
EVALUATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSIAN 11
GULF COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM
In the medical history, the CCEP patients are asked about how many
workdays they have lost because of illness in the last 90 days. Most patients
(81 %) reported that they had not missed any days of work because of illness
during the 90 days before their initial evaluation. Few patients (7%) reported
missing more than 1 week of work because of illness (DoD, l995d). By this
measure, most CCEP patients are not seriously impaired by their symptoms.
However, it is likely that there are substantial disincentives for taking lengthy
sick leave in the military, just as there are in civilian employment. In addition,
the reported number of lost workdays may not always reflect more subtle
functional impairments. Nonetheless, if these self-reported data on lost
workdays are accurate, they can serve a useful sentinel role for significant
impairment. It is unlikely that there is a high degree of prevalence of significant
impairment among the CCEP population.
Disability processing actions in the Services' Physical Disability Processing
Systems have been completed for 246 of the 10,020 CCEP patients (DoD,
l995c). The DoD has not provided any data about their diagnoses or their
reasons for medical separation from the military. The committee recommends
that the DoD investigate the diagnoses in this group of patients in future reports,
as well as whether or not the disorders could have been caused or exacerbated
by service in the Persian Gulf. Many other individuals who served in the
Persian Gulf have left active service and, hence, are not eligible for the DoD's
CCEP. Some of these veterans may have disabilities related or unrelated to
their service in the Persian Gulf, and those with disabilities might be more likely
to have left active service. For these reasons, the CCEP results should not be
viewed as estimates of the prevalence of disability related to Persian Gulf
seNice.
Clinical Evidence of a New, Unique Persian Gulf Syndrome
In the DoD report on 10,020 CCEP patients, a major conclusion is that "To
date, the CCEP has identified no clinical evidence for a new or unique illness
or syndrome among Persian Gulf veterans" (DoD, 1995d). The justification for
this conclusion is as follows (DoD, 1995d):
DoD physicians have diagnosed a wide range of medical conditions
commonly seen in general medical practice, but have found no clinical
evidence for a unique illness among CCEP participants. The large
number of patients participating in the CCEP, the thoroughness of the
evaluations, and the clinical impressions of CCEP physicians are the
primary basis for forming conclusions regarding the existence of a new
or unique condition or syndrome.
OCR for page 12
12 EVALUATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSIAN
GULF COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM
The committee agrees that there is currently no clinical evidence in the
CCEP of a previously unknown, serious illness among Persian Gulf veterans.
If there were a new or unique illness or syndrome among Persian Gulf veterans
that could cause serious impairment in a high proportion of veterans at risk, it
would probably be detectable in the population of 10,020 CCEP patients. On
the other hand, if an unknown illness were mild or affected only a small
proportion of veterans at risk, it might not be detectable in a case series, no
matter how large. For example, if some particular exposure in the Persian Gulf
region could cause a small proportion of veterans to develop mild headaches,
this would be difficult to detect. This is because mild headaches are common
medical problems, and they are associated with many different risk factors.
Sophisticated statistical techniques, including cluster analysis, could be used
to identify whether or not there are previously unidentified patterns of symptoms
among the CCEP patients. If symptom patterns were identified, the patterns
would have to be analyzed to determine whether the affected patients
demonstrated characteristic physical abnormalities, lab test abnormalities, and
risk factors that might suggest a new, unique syndrome. To be designated as
a newly recognized disease, these patterns of physical abnormalities, lab test
abnormalities, and risk factors would have to be objectively different from the
patterns of well-recognized diseases. If it appears that there is a new, unique
syndrome, an investigation of the association between this medical condition and
exposure to physical and psychological stressors in the Persian Gulf would then
be necessary. The committee encourages the DoD's plan to share the entire
CCEP data set with qualified researchers outside of the DoD who might be able
to undertake the kind of research with the methodological sophistication that the
identification of a new syndrome would require.
The DoD and the DVA are sponsoring several large research studies that
may provide more definitive answers as to whether there is a new, unique
Persian Gulf Syndrome. An outline of the research studies that are relevant to
the CCEP appears in a later section of this report.
Potential Relationship of Illnesses in
CCEP Patients to Service in the Persian Gulf
As in previous conflicts, some CCEP patients may have developed illnesses
that are directly related to their service in the Persian Gulf, such as (1) acute
musculoskeletal injuries that were sustained during the war, (2) infectious
diseases such as leishmaniasis that are very rare outside of the Middle East
(Hyams et al., 1995), or (3) psychological stress experienced during or after the
war that has caused or exacerbated physical or mental illnesses (Sutker et al.,
1994a). Some CCEP patients also may have developed illnesses that are
OCR for page 13
EVALUATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSIAN 13
GULF COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM
coincidental with or predate, and that are therefore unrelated to, their service in
the Persian Gulf. Physicians involved with the development and the
administration of the CCEP have, in various public presentations, acknowledged
that some CCEP patients have developed illnesses that are directly related to
their service in the Persian Gulf. The recent DoD report on 10,020 CCEP
participants, however, only touches on this issue indirectly (DoD, 1995d). The
committee encourages the DoD to discuss the issue of causality explicitly and
unambiguously in its future reports. Such a discussion might help to alleviate
the current climate of confusion and mistrust that exists among some Persian
Gulf veterans and the general public.
The time of onset of disease is closely related to the potential relationship
of an illness and service in the Persian Gulf. The CCEP questionnaire includes
an explicit question about the duration of symptoms in weeks; therefore, it
would be possible to stratify the onset of each patient's symptoms relative to his
or her service in the Persian Gulf. The recent DoD report on 10,020
participants, however, does not address the timing of exposures during Persian
Gulf service in relation to the onset of symptoms (DoD, l995d). The committee
recommends that the DoD attempt to determine the timing of the onset of
disease, especially for patients who have significant impairments. Review of
military or civilian medical records that predate enrollment in the CCEP may
provide contemporaneous documentation of the onset of symptoms in some
patients, especially if the symptoms are serious. In addition, it is important to
determine whether service in the Persian Gulf has contributed to the
exacerbation of preexisting diseases in some CCEP patients.
Comparison of the CCEP Population with Other Populations
In its most recent report, the DoD compares the symptoms and diagnoses
in the CCEP population with the symptoms and diagnoses in several community-
based and clinically based populations (DoD, 1995d). For example, the DoD
provides possible explanations for why certain diagnostic categories are more or
less common in the CCEP than in the National Ambulatory Medical Care
Survey. In the committee's view, interpretations based on comparisons with
other populations should be made with great caution and only with the explicit
recognition of the limitations of the CCEP as a self-selected case series. The
CCEP was not designed to answer epidemiological questions, such as how the
frequencies of certain diagnoses compare between the CCEP population and a
control population. Instead, it was designed as a medical evaluation and
treatment program. Indeed, the research aims of the CCEP do not appear to be
stated explicitly, nor does there appear to be a concrete epidemiological study
OCR for page 14
14 EVALUATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSIAN
GULF COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM
plan. Without research hypotheses, it is not possible to judge whether any
particular comparison group is appropriate.
Many different comparison groups are briefly mentioned in the DoD report
on 10,020 CCEP participants (DoD, l995d). Each individual population should
be described to prevent confusion. Because of the self-selected nature of the
CCEP population, a truly comparable reference group may not be available.
For example, active-duty military personnel tend to be younger, predominately
male, and healthy enough to work full-time. Since the physical requirements to
join the military are relatively stringent, active-duty personnel are generally
healthier than the average person in the same age group. In contrast, civilian
patients who have been evaluated in primary care clinics may be older, may
include more females, and may be too sick to work full-time. Because the
CCEP population has concerns about chronic symptoms and is actively seeking
health care, clinically based groups might be more appropriate for comparison
than population-based groups.
The CCEP includes a wide variety of data gathered at many sites. Clinical
evaluations were performed by different physicians in many locations and who
possibly used a variety of diagnostic criteria. This is particularly true for
diseases for which the diagnostic methods are not entirely routinize, such as
neuropsychological disorders or sleep disorders. These data may not be
appropriate for epidemiological purposes beyond the description of a case series
because of the potential lack of uniformity in collecting the diagnostic
information. For these reasons, it would be extremely difficult to establish
causal relationships or to identify and characterize a new "Persian Gulf
Syndrome" definitively by relying on data from the CCEP alone. The latitude
permitted in the clinical examination program conflicts with the rigor necessary
to answer an epidemiological question.
The CCEP data do have considerable clinical utility, and they could be used
to address many important questions from a descriptive perspective. Many case
series could be derived from these data, for example, a case series describing
the sleep apneas identified in the CCEP population. In addition, the results of
the clinical exams could provide guidance in the selection of research questions
and in the design of future epidemiological research. In particular, certain
hypotheses could be derived from the clinical exams, which in turn could lead
to explicit choices in questionnaire design or laboratory tests. For example, the
frequency of serious infectious diseases, such as leishmaniasis or malaria, is
very low in the CCEP population; therefore, further epidemiological research
should not focus solely on infectious diseases. The CCEP findings could be
used to generate epidemiological questions on other types of diseases that are
much more frequent in the CCEP population, such as musculoskeletal diseases.
An outline of ongoing epidemiological research that is relevant to the CCEP is
Representative terms from entire chapter:
airborne formaldehyde
