Multiple chemical sensitivity in the clinical setting

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: It's time to catch up to the science

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a complex medical condition associated with low dose chemical exposures. MCS is characterized by diverse features and common comorbidities, including fibromyalgia, cough hypersensitivity, asthma, and migraine, and stress/anxiety, with which the syndrome shares numerous neurobiological processes and altered functioning within diverse brain regions. Predictive factors linked to MCS comprise genetic influences, gene-environment interactions, oxidative stress, systemic inflammation, cell dysfunction, and psychosocial influences. The development of MCS may be attributed to the sensitization of transient receptor potential (TRP) receptors, notably TRPV1 and TRPA1. Capsaicin inhalation challenge studies demonstrated that TRPV1 sensitization is manifested in MCS, and functional brain imaging studies revealed that TRPV1 and TRPA1 agonists promote brain-region specific neuronal variations. Unfortunately, MCS has often been inappropriately viewed as stemming exclusively from psychological disturbances, which has fostered patients being stigmatized and ostracized, and often being denied accommodation for their disability. Evidence-based education is essential to provide appropriate support and advocacy. Greater recognition of receptor-mediated biological mechanisms should be incorporated in laws, and regulation of environmental exposures.

The search for reliable biomarkers of disease in multiple chemical sensitivity and other environmental intolerances

Whilst facing a worldwide fast increase of food and environmental allergies, the medical community is also confronted with another inhomogeneous group of environment-associated disabling conditions, including multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, electric hypersensitivity, amalgam disease and others. These share the features of poly-symptomatic multi-organ cutaneous and systemic manifestations, with postulated inherited/acquired impaired metabolism of chemical/physical/nutritional xenobiotics, triggering adverse reactions at exposure levels far below toxicologically-relevant values, often in the absence of clear-cut allergologic and/or immunologic involvement. Due to the lack of proven pathogenic mechanisms generating measurable disease biomarkers, these environmental hypersensitivities are generally ignored by sanitary and social systems, as psychogenic or "medically unexplained symptoms". The uncontrolled application of diagnostic and treatment protocols not corresponding to acceptable levels of validation, safety, and clinical efficacy, to a steadily increasing number of patients demanding assistance, occurs in many countries in the absence of evidence-based guidelines. Here we revise available information supporting the organic nature of these clinical conditions. Following intense research on gene polymorphisms of phase I/II detoxification enzyme genes, so far statistically inconclusive, epigenetic and metabolic factors are under investigation, in particular free radical/antioxidant homeostasis disturbances. The finding of relevant alterations of catalase, glutathione-transferase and peroxidase detoxifying activities significantly correlating with clinical manifestations of MCS, has recently registered some progress towards the identification of reliable biomarkers of disease onset, progression, and treatment outcomes.

Sickness-related dysfunction in persons with self-reported multiple chemical sensitivity at four levels of severity

AIM

To examine quality of life outcome for persons who self-report chemical sensitivity, often referred to as multiple chemical sensitivity.

BACKGROUND

Multiple chemical sensitivity is poorly understood with few providers specialising in its treatment. This lack of treatment and the ubiquity of chemicals engender severe life impacts such as job loss, financial loss, social isolation and even homelessness for persons who experience these sensitivities.

DESIGN

Survey.

METHOD

We examined chemical incitants, symptoms and sickness-related behavioural dysfunction as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile in 254 persons self-identified with multiple chemical sensitivity.

RESULTS

Chemicals rated as causing the most symptomatology in respondents were pesticide, formaldehyde, fresh paint, new carpet, diesel exhaust, perfume and air fresheners. The five highest rated symptoms in this sample were tiredness/lethargy, difficulty concentrating, muscle aches, memory difficulties and long-term fatigue. Overall mean Sickness Impact Profile score was 25.25%, showing serious impairment, with the most serious dysfunction in the categories of work (55.36%), alertness behaviour (53.45%) and recreation and pastimes (45.20%).

CONCLUSION

Multiple chemical sensitivity is an important health care issue because it often includes serious dysfunction, is poorly understood by providers and poses extensive financial and treatment obstacles for those who experience it.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Persons with multiple chemical sensitivity seek medical treatment in a variety of contexts and informed providers can both avoid iatrogenic harm due to medical exposures and provide any possible treatment for the chemical sensitivities. Understanding the impact of the health condition is crucial to communicate with and treat persons who experience the sensitivities.

Anaesthesia for patients with idiopathic environmental intolerance and chronic fatigue syndrome

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic environmental intolerance syndrome (IEI), formerly known as multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCSS), and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are controversial diseases and there is little information in the literature regarding the appropriate conduct of anaesthesia in such patients.

METHODS

We studied 27 patients referred to our anaesthetic allergy clinic with IEI and CFS and performed literature and web searches on anaesthesia in these disorders.

RESULTS

The patients had a significant incidence of adverse events related to anaesthesia which were not allergic in nature. The adverse effects usually occurred postoperatively and were self limiting. Patients with IEI and CFS are not at risk of anaphylaxis and there is no scientific evidence that any drug or technique is excessively hazardous. Neither our patients nor the review of the scientific literature supported available web-based recommendations for the anaesthetic management of patients with IEL and CFS.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the anaesthetist may be best to use the technique they would use if the patient did not have CFS or IEI but avoid drugs to which there is a history of adverse response. Anaesthesia is likely to be associated with adverse effects in these patients but the effects are not likely to be severe. A series of recommendations for the safe and harmonious conduct of anaesthesia in patients with CFS and IEI are provided.