The epidemiology of post viral fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

The epidemiology of the post viral fatigue syndrome was studied for the years 1985-86. With a strict definition of the syndrome, it was found that there were many misconceptions about this illness. The sex incidence was nearly equal with a similar pattern of twin peaks at 25-29 years and 40-45 years. At diagnosis, 56% were ill for three to six months and only 9% for more than two years. It is estimated that this syndrome is more common than infectious mononucleosis.

Source: Ho-Yen DO. The epidemiology of post viral fatigue syndrome. Scott Med J. 1988 Dec;33(6):368-9. doi: 10.1177/003693308803300607. PMID: 2854300. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2854300/

Post-infectious disease syndrome

Abstract:

Many post-infectious syndromes have been recognized in the last 50 years, some following viral infections and others closely related to bacterial disease. The occurrence of prolonged fatigue following an apparent viral illness of varying severity is also well documented. The lack of a recognizable precipitating cause and the tendency for epidemic fatigue to occur among hospital staff led many to believe that the illness may be psychogenic in origin. However, there is serological evidence that some cases may follow enterovirus infections or occasionally delayed convalescence from infectious mononucleosis. Much interesting work is currently in progress relating fatigue to persisting immunological abnormalities, and the development of molecular immunology makes this a most exciting field of research. This paper reviews the evidence for and against a definitive post-viral fatigue syndrome and examines the results of research carried out in the last 50 years.

Source: Bannister BA. Post-infectious disease syndrome. Postgrad Med J. 1988 Jul;64(753):559-67. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.64.753.559. PMID: 3074289; PMCID: PMC2428896.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2428896/ (Full text)

Diagnostic criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome by the CFS Study Group in Japan

Abstract:

Much interest recently has been given to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Japan as other countries. The CFS Study Group sponsored by the Ministry of Health and Welfare has been developed since April 1991, A diagnostic criteria for CFS was newly proposed by this group. The criteria is substantially based upon the working case definition, which was made by Holmes and colleagues in 1988. There are some modification from CDC working case definition; the criteria of probable cases of CFS was defined, and postinfectious CFS was also given.

 

Source: Kitani T, Kuratsune H, Yamaguchi K. Diagnostic criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome by the CFS Study Group in Japan. Nihon Rinsho. 1992 Nov;50(11):2600-5. [Article in Japanese] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1287236

 

Definition of the chronic fatigue syndrome and its issues

Abstract:

This article reviewed Definition of CFS proposed by CDC 1988. There are several issues in Definition for CFS of CDC. It is presented that other chronic clinical conditions have been satisfactorily excluded, including preexisting psychiatric diseases in (2) of major criteria.

However, fibromyalgia can not be excluded from the fifth symptom of minor criteria, myalgia, and also depression from the ninth symptom.

It is practically difficult to define impairment of average daily activity below 50% of the patient’s premorbid activity level for a period of at least 6 months, as shown in (1) of major criteria, and it is not adapted for a first visit patient.

Definition for CFS of CDC has been discussed on EBV infection, but not written on postviral fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis. Especially whether epidemic type of CFS is present or not was not discussed. Diagnostic criteria of CFS is necessary for clinical practice.

 

Source: Hashimoto N. Definition of the chronic fatigue syndrome and its issues. Nihon Rinsho. 1992 Nov;50(11):2591-9. [Article in Japanese] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1287235

 

“Virus of the year”?

Note: This letter by Dr. Ray Holland, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on August 1, 1988, generated several responses. Dr. Salit’s response appears below. 

 

There appears to be a scarcity of information in medical and psychiatric journals (although not in the lay press) on what was initially termed the Epstein-Barr syndrome but was later renamed chronic fatigue syndrome because it can be caused by infective agents other than the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). For example, the last article on the subject in CMAJ appeared in 1985.(1) There the syndrome, consisting of fatigue, depression, myalgia, muscle weakness, headaches and paresthesia, was named sporadic postinfectious neuromyasthenia (PIN), a term preferable to chronic fatigue syndrome because it is not ambiguous and because the condition can be of both infectious and psychologic origin.

Presumably the condition was named chronic fatigue syndrome because fatigue is the main presenting symptom, but in psychologic depression fatigue can also be the main manifestation. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the American Medical Association appears to have adopted such an ambiguous term while lamenting that the lack of a definitive diagnosis leaves both patients and health care providers frustrated.(2)

To confuse matters further, the media have labelled the condition chronic fatigue in overachievers or Yuppie flu. In fact, traditional psychiatrists have for some timed called chronic fatigue in overachievers anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure), which, if untreated, may lead to fatigue, depression and the other symptoms mentioned.

While the clinical picture may be ambiguous, the serologic findings may be more so, even when interpreted along with the clinical findings, because those exposed to EBV may have positive serologic results but no chronic sequelae, in much the same way as most people exposed to tuberculosis have subclinical infection. How high does the antibody titre have to be for a definite diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome in those who were apparently well before the acute viral attack, even if one excludes those with a previous psychiatric history, as Salit did? One must suspect that a high antibody titre that does not correlate with the clinical findings implies a psychologic origin, as does a low antibody titre. However, it appears that many patients who are told that they have positive but inconclusive serologic results of testing for EBV are choosing to believe that they have the disease. The local medical laboratory has informed me that there is not even a range of titres for EBV but that patients must find their own range by correlating values with how they feel! The media seem to infer that cases with negative results of EBV testing either have not been diagnosed because of lack of the necessary technology or have been misdiagnosed, because there is no mention that the cause may be psychologic.

Such a state of affairs is only too likely in today’s society, in which people are actually healthier than ever before but are more disease conscious and in which the media have a lively interest in medical matters. Rather than an epidemic of the disease, there appears to be an epidemic of the diagnosis, such that EBV should be named “virus of the year”.

May primum non nocere prevail as high-tech medicine continues to advance, at an alarming rate.

~Ray G.L. Holland, MD, FRCPC Box 458 Port Colbome, Ont.

References

  1. Salit IE: Sporadic postinfectious neuromyasthenia. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 133: 659-663
  2. Straus SE: EB or not EB – that is the question [E]. JAMA 1987; 257: 2335- 2336

 

[Dr. Salit responds:]

I too believe that the lack of information in medical journals on PIN [postinfectious neuromyasthenia] is a problem. There appears to be confusion about the condition among physicians, granting agencies and medical journals; they are unable to neatly classify the ailment into a nosologic category. The comment has been that the illness is “too vague” or “ill-defined”. This translates into an inability to have studies related to this subject published. Indeed, last year CMAJ rejected my article on immunologic aberrations in PIN, citing similar reasons.

The term chronic fatigue syndrome (1) was probably chosen by US investigators because it is a generic term. In 1985 these investigators thought that the illness was due to EBV; hence the common designation chronic EBV infection.(2) At that time I felt that the illness was induced by many etiologic agents, so I used the term PIN.(3) Most investigators in this area have come around to this way of thinking but have chosen not to use the term PIN.

Dr. Holland indicates that this disease has been acknowledged by psychiatrists in the past under other designations. Indeed, very similar illnesses have been known to different specialists by different names for decades. I have suggested a unifying hypothesis concerning a common pathophysiologic mechanism.(4)

EBV serologic findings have been the most confusing diagnostic aspect of this illness. Some patients after typical acute infectious mononucleosis have a form of chronic mononucleosis that symptomatically resembles PIN.(5) The serologic findings strongly suggest chronic active EBV infection. However, in most cases of PIN the illness probably did not start with acute infectious mononucleosis, and the patients probably do not have continuing active EBV infection. Using a sensitive DNA probe we found that PIN patients were not excreting EBV.(6) Furthermore, there is such extensive overlap between PIN patients and healthy controls that EBV serologic findings cannot be used to make the diagnosis.(7) It is also likely that such patients have moderately elevated titres of antibodies to a variety of other antigens. Most adults in Canada have EBV antibodies from a prior infection. Too often a diagnosis of chronic EBV infection is made on the basis of certain symptoms and the findings of any EBV antibody. This is inappropriate.

Holland says that “there appears to be an epidemic of the diagnosis”. What has become very apparent to me is that there are a large number of people in the community with illnesses that might be included under the rubric PIN. Physicians argue about the existence of this disease, but it is clear to me that PIN patients have an illness (or a deviation from a normal state of health). Despite the fact that we do not understand the disease process that results in this illness, the patients still require appropriate medical care, consisting of empathy, an acknowledgement that they are ill, reassurance that there is an absence of a more severe disease and, finally, guidelines on how best to manage the condition.(4’8’9)

I do not think that primum non nocere should prevail, although I can accept secundum non nocere. First we should show some understanding and compassion.

~ Irving E. Salit, MD, FRCPC Division of Infectious Diseases Toronto General Hospital Toronto, Ont.

References

  1. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM et al: Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 387-389
  2. Jones JF, Ray CG, Minnich LL et al: Evidence for active Epstein-Barr virus infection in patients with persistent, unexplained illnesses: elevated antiearly antigen antibodies. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102: 1-7 3. Salit IE: Sporadic postinfectious neuromyasthenia. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 133: 659-663
  3. Idem: Chronic EBV infections (postinfectious neuromyasthenia). Med North Am 1987; 10: 1944-1950
  4. Straus SE: The chronic mononucleosis syndrome. J Infect Dis 1988; 157: 405- 412
  5. Salit IE, Diaz-Mitoma F, Walmsley S et al: Absence of Epstein-Barr virus excretion in post-infectious neuromyopathies. Presented at the American Society for Microbiology annual meeting, Miami Beach, May 9, 1988
  6. Buchwald D, Sullivan JL, Komaroff AL: Frequency of “chronic active Epstein-Barr virus infection” in a general medical practice. JAMA 1987; 257: 2303-2307
  7. Salit IE: Post-infectious fatigue. Can Fam Physician 1987; 133: 1217-1219 9. Taerk GS, Toner B, Salit IE et al: Depression in patients with neuromyasthemia. Int J Psychiatry Med 1987; 17: 49-56

 

Source: R G Holland. “Virus of the year”? CMAJ. 1988 Aug 1; 139(3): 198–199. PMCID: PMC1268060 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1268060/?page=1 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1268061/

 

Acyclovir treatment of the chronic fatigue syndrome. Lack of efficacy in a placebo-controlled trial

Abstract:

Twenty-seven adults with a diagnosis of the chronic fatigue syndrome were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of acyclovir therapy. The patients had had debilitating fatigue for an average of 6.8 years, accompanied by persisting antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus early antigens (titers greater than or equal to 1:40) or undetectable levels of antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigens (titers less than 1:2) or both.

Each course of treatment consisted of intravenous placebo or acyclovir (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) administered every eight hours for seven days. The same drug was then given orally for 30 days (acyclovir, 800 mg four times daily). There were six-week observation periods before, between, and after the treatments. Three patients had acyclovir-induced nephrotoxicity and were withdrawn from the study.

Of the 24 patients who completed the trial, similar numbers improved with acyclovir therapy and with placebo (11 and 10, respectively). Neither acyclovir treatment nor clinical improvement correlated with alterations in laboratory findings, including titers of antibody to Epstein-Barr virus or levels of circulating immune complexes or of leukocyte 2′,5′-oligoadenylate synthetase. Subjective improvement correlated with various measures of mood.

We conclude that acyclovir, as used in this study, does not ameliorate the chronic fatigue syndrome. We believe that the clinical improvement observed in most patients reflected either spontaneous remission of the syndrome or a placebo effect.

 

Source: Straus SE, Dale JK, Tobi M, Lawley T, Preble O, Blaese RM, Hallahan C, Henle W. Acyclovir treatment of the chronic fatigue syndrome. Lack of efficacy in a placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1988 Dec 29;319(26):1692-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2849717

 

The chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis)–myth or mystery?

Abstract:

The chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or myalgic encephalomyelitis has caused great confusion, misunderstanding and perhaps even mismanagement of many persons presenting with a variety of combinations of ill-defined complaints. The history, possible pathogenesis and clinical features, of what is probably in most instances a post-viral infection syndrome, are reviewed. The recent Centers for Disease Control case definition is summarised and simplified. The need for such uniformity of definition, acceptable to most workers in the field, is emphasised in order to facilitate further studies into the cause, diagnosis, course and treatment of CFS. The difficulty in treating this condition and the currently recommended management are described. Double-blind controlled studies are essential in assessing any proposed new treatment.

 

Source: Spracklen FH. The chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis)–myth or mystery? S Afr Med J. 1988 Nov 5;74(9):448-52. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3055363

 

Sleep and symptoms in fibrositis syndrome after a febrile illness

Abstract:

Sleep physiology and symptoms of 9 patients with fibrositis syndrome secondary to a febrile illness were compared to 9 patients with fibrositis syndrome who did not attribute their symptoms to a febrile illness and to 10 healthy controls.

Both patient groups showed an alpha EEG (7.5 to 11 Hz) nonrapid eye movement sleep anomaly, had similar observed tender points, and self-ratings of musculoskeletal pain.

These findings suggest that patients with postfebrile fibrositis have a nonrestorative sleep disorder characteristic of patients with fibrositis syndrome and share similar symptoms with patients who have a “chronic fatigue syndrome.”

 

Source: Moldofsky H, Saskin P, Lue FA. Sleep and symptoms in fibrositis syndrome after a febrile illness. J Rheumatol. 1988 Nov;15(11):1701-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3236304

 

The frequency of the chronic fatigue syndrome in patients with symptoms of persistent fatigue

Abstract:

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of the chronic fatigue syndrome among patients with symptoms of fatigue.

DESIGN: Prospective, cohort study.

SETTING: Referral clinic, based in a primary care general internal medicine faculty practice of a university medical center.

PATIENTS: Consecutive sample of 135 patients (53 men, 82 women) with 6 months or more of debilitating fatigue.

INTERVENTIONS: All patients had a complete history taken, had a physical examination and a comprehensive battery of blood tests, and were given the Diagnostic Interview Schedule of the National Institute of Mental Health, a highly-structured 260-item instrument designed to enable accurate psychiatric diagnoses. Other diagnostic studies (for example, sleep studies and electroencephalography) were ordered if necessary for individual patients.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Six of the one hundred thirty-five patients met criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome (95% CI, 0 to 10). Ninety-one (67%) patients (CI, 56 to 78) had clinically active psychiatric disorders and 4 (3%) patients (CI, 0 to 8) had medical disorders that were considered a major cause of their fatigue. Thirty-four (25%) patients (CI, 14 to 36) had insufficient symptoms or objective findings of the chronic fatigue syndrome.

CONCLUSION: The chronic fatigue syndrome is rare among patients with symptoms of persistent fatigue. Most of these patients have psychiatric disorders.

 

Source: Manu P, Lane TJ, Matthews DA. The frequency of the chronic fatigue syndrome in patients with symptoms of persistent fatigue. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Oct 1;109(7):554-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3421564

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome–a diagnosis for consideration

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is an illness which may be mild or completely disabling. Clients who return with recurring non-related symptoms and no specific diagnosis may suffer from CFS. The symptoms of CFS are numerous and varied, including fatigue, malaise, myalgias, difficulty concentrating, headaches and sore throat. Patient complaints seem out of proportion to the physical findings, which may be normal. There is no cure for this chronic disease. Therapy is primarily symptomatic. The role of the health care provider is to recognize this confusing disorder and help the patient and family cope with its many effects.

 

Source: Portwood MF. Chronic fatigue syndrome–a diagnosis for consideration. Nurse Pract. 1988 Feb;13(2):11-2, 15-8, 23. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2830563