Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
There may be no specific syndrome, but troops suffer after most wars
By the end of the Gulf War in February 1991 US,
British, and Canadian forces had deployed about 697 000, 53 000, and
4500 military personnel, respectively, to south west Asia. The conflict required rapid mobilisation of coalition combat troops, and massive numbers of casualties were expected.1 An extensive medical infrastructure and preventive medicine effort was deployed to support
the troops.
2 3
During the operation service personnel were exposed to a wide variety of known and potential health hazards. These exposures included smoke from oil well fires, extremes of hot and
cold weather, petroleum products and fumes, depleted uranium, pesticides, endemic infectious diseases, and other physical and psychological stressors. The preparations for war included training in
chemical warfare, immunisation against certain biological warfare agents, and use of the nerve agent protection pill, pyridostigmine bromide.
Despite the arduous conditions, morbidity rates among US troops were
lower than in previous wars.
4 5
Mortality was also much
lower than expected. Altogether 372 deployed US troops died in 1990-1:
40% from combat, 52% from accidents (primarily related to training
and motor vehicles), and 8% from illness.6 Illnesses in
Gulf War veterans have been a source of intense controversy on both
sides of the Atlantic. Since 1991 many veterans and their families have
voiced concerns about possible health consequences of their service,
and many have complained of being unwell, reporting a wide array of
medical complaints. Some veterans have alleged a conspiracy to deny the
existence of Gulf War syndrome and to cover up toxic chemical
exposures. Clinical manifestations have varied, though the most
commonly reported symptoms have been fatigue, headaches, joint pains,
rashes, shortness of breath, sleep disturbances, difficulty
concentrating, and forgetfulness. Recent reports, including one in this
week's BMJ (p 290),7 have looked at the
long term effects of these exposures. What do they tell us?
In this issue Coker et al confirm these clinical observations in
British Gulf War veterans.7 Their report catalogues the examination findings of a large case series covering 1000 servicemen and women who voluntarily attended the Ministry of Defence's medical assessment programme. The programme uses a structured evaluation protocol that includes a comprehensive medical history, an exposure questionnaire, physical examinations, and extensive laboratory testing.
Patients are referred to specialist consultants after the initial
evaluation as needed. The participants reported multiple common medical
symptoms, including affective problems (50%) , fatigue (42%), joint
and muscle aches (40%), cognitive problems (26%), headaches (26%),
respiratory complaints (24%), gastrointestinal problems (22%), sleep
disturbances (21%), and skin problems (19%). Participants often had
multiple symptoms, and most had more than one diagnosis.
Musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory conditions, and post-traumatic
stress disorder were diagnosed in 18%, 16%, and at least 12%,
respectively. Similar adverse health effects have been reported among
other groups of UK, US, and Canadian Gulf War
veterans.
8 9 10
Post-traumatic stress disorder was diagnosed in a small but substantial
proportion of the individuals evaluated by the medical assessment
programme. The literature suggests that the prevalence of
post-traumatic stress disorder among Gulf War veterans varies considerably, from 3% to 50%, with most studies in the lower
range.11 Stress has been suggested as an important
contributory factor in Gulf War veterans' illnesses. However,
post-traumatic stress disorder alone does not account for the majority
of illnesses in this population, and clinicians should be cautioned not
to attribute the somatic symptoms of Gulf War veterans to stress without a thorough, exclusionary diagnostic evaluation. The medical assessment programme's protocol can serve as a valuable set of clinical guidelines for the general practitioner who is evaluating a
Gulf War veteran with poorly defined medical complaints.
Coker et al are right to emphasise the limitations of their self
selected case series.7 As a voluntary programme, the
medical assessment programme has limited generalisability and cannot be used to estimate prevalence. However, these clinical registries are a
crucial component of the necessary response to Gulf War veterans'
health concerns because they provide medical care and an opportunity to
discuss the possible health consequences of Gulf service with a
knowledgeable physician. In addition, the clinical programmes serve as
a strong foundation for developing research questions and hypotheses.
A well focused, coordinated UK Gulf health research programme, overseen
by the Medical Research Council, has also been developed, and
epidemiological studies to assess veterans' health and answer fundamental questions about the incidence and prevalence of morbidity and mortality are in progress. As part of this programme Unwin et al
recently published the results of a large, cross sectional postal
survey of British Gulf War veterans.12 Their principal finding was that Gulf War veterans were two to three times more likely
to report an entire array of symptoms than were service personnel who
had either served in Bosnia or not been deployed. Symptoms included
chronic fatigue, irritability, headaches, cognitive difficulties, sleep
problems, and joint pain. An accompanying paper used factor analysis to
assess symptom clusters in the survey results but failed to identify a
unique illness among Gulf War veterans.13
Fukuda et al showed similar findings in a random sample of over 3000 US
Air Force National Guard and active duty forces.14 Both
studies found that the non-deployed veterans also met the illness
criteria; symptom reports occurred with greater frequency among Gulf
War veterans but were not unique to Gulf War service. The pattern of
symptoms differed little from those of troops who served elsewhere but
they occurred at an increased rate. Haley et al administered a detailed
questionnaire to 249 members of a US Reserve Naval mobile construction
battalion that served in the Gulf15: 70% of this
unit reported health concerns, and through factor analysis the authors
identified six clusters of symptoms which they grouped into unique
syndromes. Neither the work of Fukuda et al nor Ismail et al could
replicate these findings.
Thus, though Gulf War veterans' illnesses are real and sometimes
disabling, they do not seem to constitute a unique illness. A growing
consensus is emerging from the clinical and epidemiological evidence
that there is no Gulf War syndrome Occupational and Environmental Health, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington DC 20420, USA (murfra{at}mail.va.gov)
though a rare medical condition in
a small subgroup of Gulf War veterans cannot be excluded conclusively.
The findings reported in this issue are consistent with these
conclusions. Importantly, similar poorly defined, postwar illnesses
have been shown after every military conflict this century, including
the two world wars and the Vietnam war.16 Traditionally, military medicine has focused on combat casualty care and prevention. There is now a growing awareness in military medicine that in future
wars combat casualties often will not have visible wounds. The
prevalence, natural history, and causes of these illnesses are,
however, poorly understood. Detailed baseline health screening on entry
into military service, better monitoring of physical and psychological
stressors during combat, and well designed, prospective epidemiological
studies will be necessary to gain a better understanding of this
postwar health phenomenon. Proactive prevention must be developed to
reduce the burden of postwar illnesses. This is the challenge for
future research: our veterans serve bravely and deserve no less.
© BMJ 1999
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+