Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome as a clinically important subgroup of chronic fatigue syndrome: further evidence for central nervous system dysfunctioning

In this issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine, Lewis and colleagues [1] provide compelling data for a novel subgroup within the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) population. They show that approximately 13% (24/179) of CFS patients have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a form of dysautonomia implying that when patients change their body position from supine to upright, their heart rate will increase abnormally (tachycardia). POTS is associated with several symptoms often seen in CFS patients: fatigue, lightheadedness, dizziness, neurocognitive deficits and exercise intolerance. Importantly, this was a confirmatory study of a previously published pilot study that found a prevalence rate for POTS of 29% in a smaller sample (n = 63) of CFS patients [2]. Another significant finding is the differences in fatigue severity, depressive thoughts and daytime hypersomnolence between CFS patients with and without POTS, providing evidence for the clinical importance of POTS in CFS.

You can read the full comment here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12034/full

Comment on: Clinical characteristics of a novel subgroup of chronic fatigue syndrome patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. [J Intern Med. 2013]

 

Source: Nijs J, Ickmans K. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome as a clinically important subgroup of chronic fatigue syndrome: further evidence for central nervous system dysfunctioning. J Intern Med. 2013 May;273(5):498-500. doi: 10.1111/joim.12034. Epub 2013 Feb 8. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12034/full (Full article)

 

Response to ‘A controversial consensus’; by the International Consensus Panel

Dear Sir,First and foremost, we would like to thank Drs van der Meer and Lloyd [1] for their careful and thorough review of the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) paper [2]. We support this type of open discussion and strongly agree that only in this way will the basic and clinical science of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) evolve soundly. This being said the content of their feedback also leads us to believe that several elements have been taken out of context or that we may not have articulated these components as well as we had hoped. As a result, we fully appreciate this opportunity to rectify any such miscommunication.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02499.x/full

Comment on: A controversial consensus–comment on article by Broderick et al. [J Intern Med. 2012]

 

Source: Broderick G. Response to ‘A controversial consensus’; by the International Consensus Panel. J Intern Med. 2012 Feb;271(2):213-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02499.x. Epub 2011 Dec 30. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02499.x/full (Full article)

 

Graded exercise therapy can have harmful effects

In journal no. 3/2011 claims Larun & Malterud that individualized graded exercise has positive health effects of chronic fatigue syndrome and the research does not provide evidence that such therapy is associated with side effects, for example. in the form of more pain ( 1 ).

The claim that graded exercise therapy is effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome is not durable. White and colleagues ( 2 ) found in a recent study that only 28% of those with “chronic fatigue” achieved average (mean ± 1 SD) scores for fatigue and physical function after graded exercise therapy, compared with 15% of those who received standard medical treatment. The placebo effect of behavioral intervention is 14%.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://tidsskriftet.no/2011/05/brev-til-redaktoren/gradert-treningsterapi-kan-ha-skadelige-effekter

Comment on: Exercise therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.  Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2011

 

Source: Twisk FN, Maes M, Festvåg L. Graded exercise therapy can have harmful effects. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2011 May 6;131(8):803. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.11.0244. [Article in Norwegian] http://tidsskriftet.no/2011/05/brev-til-redaktoren/gradert-treningsterapi-kan-ha-skadelige-effekter (Full article)

 

Making sense of fatigue: the need for a balanced approach

Dear Sir,

In their recent editorial on fatigue, Newton and Jones [1] comment that ‘the majority of primary care physicians believe that fatigue arises as a consequence of psychological rather than physical factors’ and imply that this may lead physicians to ‘fail before they begin’. They also go on to discuss a biological approach to the investigation and treatment of fatigue, highlighting the need to consider fatigue as ‘real’. While we agree with the need to consider biological processes in fatigued individuals, we contest that any approach that dichotomises the mind and body by focusing exclusively on either the biological or psychosocial aspects of fatigue ignores the current evidence base and is likely to be sub-optimal. We also strongly refute any suggestion that psychological disorders are any less ‘real’ than somatic conditions.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/8/665.long

Comment on: Making sense of fatigue. [Occup Med (Lond). 2010]

 

Source: Harvey SB, Mykletun A, Wessely S. Making sense of fatigue: the need for a balanced approach. Occup Med (Lond). 2010 Dec;60(8):665-6; author reply 666-7. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqq166. http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/8/665.long (Full article)

Current status of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related retrovirus in chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer: reach for a scorecard, not a prescription pad

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related retrovirus (XMRV) is a newly discovered member of the gammaretrovirus genus of retroviruses, which has been recently associated with 2 human disorders, prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome [1]. Since it was first reported in 2006, XMRV has been intensely investigated, but no clear picture of prevalence, geographic distribution, or disease association has emerged. In this issue of the Journal, 3 studies shed new light on the presence of XMRV in human populations.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/202/10/1463.long

 

Comment on:

Detection of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus in normal and tumor tissue of patients from the southern United States with prostate cancer is dependent on specific polymerase chain reaction conditions. [J Infect Dis. 2010]

Failure to detect xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus in blood of individuals at high risk of blood-borne viral infections. [J Infect Dis. 2010]

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus prevalence in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome or chronic immunomodulatory conditions. [J Infect Dis. 2010]

 

Source: Kearney M, Maldarelli F. Current status of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related retrovirus in chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer: reach for a scorecard, not a prescription pad. J Infect Dis. 2010 Nov 15;202(10):1463-6. doi: 10.1086/657169. Epub 2010 Oct 11. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/202/10/1463.long (Full article)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome reflects loss of adaptability

In this issue, Van Oosterwijck et al. [1] report that physical exercise lowered pain thresholds and was associated with exacerbation of symptoms in patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) whereas, on the other hand, postexercise activity levels did not significantly decrease. Based on these and similar findings in patients with CFS, we present a conceptual framework that might provide a better understanding of the key features and pathophysiological mechanisms of CFS, and thus improve its diagnosis and treatment.

CFS as a failure of allostasis?

Van Oosterwijck et al. [1] correctly note the frequent cooccurrence of a chronic ‘fatigue–pain’ symptom cluster, usually diagnosed as CFS and/or fibromyalgia. Recently, it has been proposed that this cluster should be classified under the unifying label of ‘central sensitivity syndromes’– a broad range of functional somatic disorders mainly characterized by common sensory abnormalities (i.e. widespread pain, hyperalgesia, allodynia and hypersensitivity to noise, bright light and certain chemical substances) [2].

However, ‘stress intolerance and pain hypersensitivity syndromes’ may be a more appropriate umbrella term for these syndromes because it reflects these patients’ inability to adequately adapt to all kinds of physical and mental stressors, including pathological pain processing [3]. Within the innovative neurobiological stress paradigm of ‘allostasis’– the need for stability through continuous change [4] – this general loss of adaptability may be understood as a failure of allostasis.

Although the mechanisms underlying this failure are still unclear, they may include complex and interrelated disturbances of different components of the stress system, (i.e. the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis), the sympathetic nervous system and various neurotransmitters that modulate perceptual–cognitive and affective brain circuits, all of which operate in intimate connection with the immune system and central pain mechanisms [5].

We and others have hypothesized that the pathophysiology of CFS might include a ‘switch’ from HPA axis hyperfunction to hypofunction following a period of chronic physical and/or psychosocial stress in vulnerable persons resulting in inadequate cortisol reactivity which may in turn, via low glucocorticoid signalling, increase inflammatory activity [5]. This assumption is consistent with the relatively low basal cortisol levels and blunted diurnal cortisol rhythm frequently observed in CFS patients [5], but recent data suggest that a decrease in glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity might play a role as well [6].

Abnormal activation of innate immunity involves the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that influence the brain and give rise to ‘sickness behaviour’. This evolutionary, physiological and behavioural reaction normally occurs during infection or severe injury and its purpose is to optimally fight bodily threats by reorganizing priorities, saving energy and promoting healing and recovery. Characteristic symptoms are profound lethargy, feelings of malaise, concentration difficulties, headache, mild fever, sensory hypersensitivity and generalized pain. In CFS patients, however, this ‘flu-like’ symptom complex may be typically provoked by any kind of stressor (e.g. physical effort, mental pressure, strong emotions) and lead to a motivational shift by urging the patient to withdraw from activities [7].

Yet, the situation may be more complex. Not only is there evidence for basal hyperfunction of the sympathetic nervous system in CFS [8] and fibromyalgia [9], but dysfunctional descending pain-inhibiting pathways [10] and various psychological mechanisms may also contribute to abnormal pain perception [11].

The data presented by Van Oosterwijck et al. [1] fit within the stress adaptability hypothesis, which includes immune-related central pain sensitization, and thus make a strong case for refining current diagnostic criteria of CFS [12] to incorporate – as a mandatory criterion –patients’ maladaptive postexertional response. Novel clinical diagnostic criteria have meanwhile been developed [13] but it remains to be seen whether these criteria will empirically prove to be appropriate in identifying the key features of the illness.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02240.x/full

Comment on: Pain inhibition and postexertional malaise in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: an experimental study. [J Intern Med. 2010]

 

Source: Van Houdenhove B, Luyten P. Chronic fatigue syndrome reflects loss of adaptability. J Intern Med. 2010 Sep;268(3):249-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02240.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02240.x/full (Full article)

 

Comment on “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

Lombardi et al. (Reports, 23 October 2009, p. 585) reported an association between the human gammaretrovirus XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome. However, their results may be misleading because of various potential sources of bias and confounding. If real, the association may lack generalizability because of the specific characteristics of the cases studied and could be due to reverse causality.

Comment on: Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. [Science. 2009]

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.1.full

 

Source: Sudlow C, Macleod M, Al-Shahi Salman R, Stone J. Comment on “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”. Science. 2010 May 14;328(5980):825; author reply 825. doi: 10.1126/science.1183545. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.1.full (Full article)

 

Comment on “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”

Abstract:

Lombardi et al. (Reports, 23 October 2009, p. 585) reported a significant association between the human retrovirus XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, the cases with CFS and the control subjects in their study are poorly described and unlikely to be representative. Independent replication is a critical first step before accepting the validity of this finding.

Comment on: Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. [Science. 2009]

You can read the full comment here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.2.full

 

Source: Lloyd A, White P, Wessely S, Sharpe M, Buchwald D. Comment on “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”. Science. 2010 May 14;328(5980):825; author reply 825. doi: 10.1126/science.1183706. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.2.full (Full article)

 

Comment on “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”

Abstract:

Lombardi et al. (Reports, 23 October 2009, p. 585) reported detection of the human gammaretrovirus XMRV in the blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, the patient description provided was incomplete. The inclusion of patients from a “CFS outbreak” previously linked with a viral infection, without confirmation in sporadic CFS cases, casts doubt on the role of XMRV in the pathogenesis of CFS.

You can read the full comment herehttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.3.full

Comment on: Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. [Science. 2009]

 

Source: van der Meer JW, Netea MG, Galama JM, van Kuppeveld FJ. Comment on “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”. Science. 2010 May 14;328(5980):825; author reply 825. doi: 10.1126/science.1183906. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.3.long (Full article)

 

Graded exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome: too soon to dismiss reports of adverse reactions

Sir,

Given there is no formal system to report adverse reactions to non-pharmacological interventions such as graded exercise therapy (GET) for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), other sources of data need to be considered when evaluating safety. As noted by Clark & White, a large survey conducted in 2001 by the charity Action for ME found that 50% of patients who received graded exercise felt worse (1, 2). They also referred to a subsequent study by the same group suggesting that many patients might not have been treated by experienced therapists (3). However, the sample was small and, as in all surveys, therapist competence was not assessed.

A review of all the surveys conducted to date not only supports the view that a significant proportion of patients experience adverse reactions following GET, but also that it is premature to attribute those reactions to practitioner inexperience or inadequate training (1, 4). For example, the results of a recent survey conducted by the ME Association showed that of the 906 individuals who had received GET, 33.1% felt “much worse” and 23.4% judged themselves to be “slightly worse” (4). Similarly, a survey of patients who had been treated in the previous 3 years, i.e. following the refinement of the protocol as discussed by Clark & White, revealed that 34% of the 722 who had tried GET perceived themselves to be worse (5).

Without details of the training of the therapist and their fidelity to the treatment manual, one can only speculate about the factors associated with poor outcome. Nijs et al. (6) discussed some of the possible reasons. However, there are additional factors that deserve consideration when evaluating the efficacy and safety of GET. Firstly, the survey results may reflect, at least in part, the experiences of patients receiving treatment in a clinical setting. As has been shown in studies on other interventions, the outcomes documented in routine practice may be more realistic than those obtained in randomized controlled trials (7). Secondly, many patients may not be able to complete graded activity schedules for various reasons, including ongoing pathology. For instance, Black & McCully (8) used an accelerometer to measure activity levels before, during and after a 4-week “training period” consistent with GET. They documented an increase in activity counts lasting between 4 and 10 days, and this was associated with higher scores for pain and fatigue. The inability to sustain target activity levels was also noted by Friedberg (9), who followed the progress of one patient during 26 sessions of GET. He recorded a 10.6% decrease in mean weekly step counts, leading Friedberg to speculate that the subjective measures of improvement might have been the result of activity substitution and a corresponding reduction in perceived stress.

Finally, we were surprised that neither of the letters cited the research by White et al. (10). This elegant study supports the growing evidence of abnormal metabolic and immunological reactions to exercise in subsets with CFS. Although their sample was small, White et al. found elevated concentrations of the pro-inflammatory cytokine tumour necrosis factor-alpha at time-points of 3 h and 3 days after exercise. In addition, they documented increased levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine transforming growth factor-beta after normal exertion. We therefore concur with Nijs et al. (6) as well as other researchers, that GET may not be appropriate for all patients with CFS and that pacing may provide a useful, acceptable and safe alternative (6, 11, 12).

You can read the rest of this letter here: https://www.medicaljournals.se/jrm/content/abstract/10.2340/16501977-0493

Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome. [J Rehabil Med. 2008]

 

Source: Kindlon T, Goudsmit EM. Graded exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome: too soon to dismiss reports of adverse reactions. J Rehabil Med. 2010 Feb;42(2):184; author reply 184-6. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0493. https://www.medicaljournals.se/jrm/content/abstract/10.2340/16501977-0493 (Full article)