Dr. Bell on ME/CFS Symptom Variation: Illness or Host?

ProHealth.com
by David S Bell, MD, FAAP
March 7, 2012

This information is excerpted from the Nov 1999 issue of the Lyndonville Journal – a bi-monthly newsletter from Dr. Bell’s medical office that preceded the Lyndonville News. It is reproduced here with kind permission,* and offers still-relevant insights, as research to identify proper case definitions, potential ME/CFS subsets, and causes continues.

Reprinted with the kind permission of ProHealth: 3/7/12

Symptom Variation: Illness or Host?

Roughly 70% of the persons I see in the office have a pattern of symptoms that is “typical of” chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The remaining 30% have variations where doubt can be raised as to the diagnosis. This variation in symptoms is the main reason that researchers may see CFS as a variety of differing illnesses that produce fatigue as a symptom…. But I feel that the vast majority have a single illness, rather than CFS being a mish-mash of different illnesses. The issue here is the debate of illness versus host.

What exactly comes from the cause, and what comes from the host response? To look at this conflict, let us look at chicken pox.

Chicken pox is an everyday, run of the mill, simple illness. Every clinician makes the diagnosis with ease. You seen one chicken pox, you have seen a thousand. It is simple and it is one single illness. That is because it is an illness that affects a distant target organ – the skin. A five-year-old comes in with a fever and little blisters that look like a “dew drop on a rose petal.” And that is exactly what a perfect chicken pox looks like. (I have no idea where the chicken part comes in.)

There may be some minor variations. A child may have 30 pox or 300. Some pox (or poxes?) may get infected or scabbed over. Big deal, it is still chicken pox, one illness. The host (or person with the illness) does not affect it much.

But wait. In some cases the host is critical and the illness can be different. Some people have chicken pox without a rash, or have a pneumonia, or worse yet, have a neurologic complication. Is it still chicken pox? Yes, because we are able to culture the virus from the lung or brain, and it is the same as the regular chicken pox in the skin.

In CFS we do not have this luxury. The situation is different.

Whatever CFS is, it affects a very central mechanism within the body, not an end organ like the skin. And this central mechanism, probably the brain, can manifest the symptoms of an insult very differently. With the brain, the same injury or illness causes a variety of symptoms. (Brain tumors, for example. The symptoms of a one-inch area of brain injury depend entirely upon the location of this injury. In one area, there may be minor if any symptoms. In another it might cause arm weakness, in another area, behavior or emotional symptoms.)

Let us suppose for one minute that a single neurotropic virus – one that affects brain tissue – causes CFS. If this virus affects only a small part of the brain, the symptoms will be uniform (post-encephalitic Parkinson’s). But if it affects more than one area, then a multitude of symptoms may result, with clear variations from person to person (Post polio syndrome). The issue is the competition between agent specificity and how the host responds to it (host versus illness).

The enormous complexity of both genetic and environmental factors makes people different. By itself, this is an interesting discussion, and probably a good thing. But science would be easier if we were all clones. (We would probably get along better as well.) The complexity of host response, differences in immunity, emotional vulnerability, and environment makes it so that the same injury may cause a variety of responses, particularly if that injury is to a central or primitive part of the brain.

In CFS, we can trace the symptoms to this primitive part of the brain where hormones are produced, where sleep and alertness are regulated, where blood pressure and heart rate are controlled, where pain is modified.

One person with CFS may have asthenia [lack of energy and strength] as the worst symptom. In another, pain is the worse symptom. Are these two illnesses, or are they the same?

The answer is seen not by looking at one or two symptoms, but by examining the entire symptom pattern. For now, it is reasonable to define CFS broadly without being picky. A clinical, symptom-based diagnosis is appropriate, with the understanding that other fatigue-causing illnesses have been excluded. The pattern of symptoms rather than the specific worst symptom defines the diagnosis. And this pattern may vary from person to person. I do not see this variation as due to differing illnesses. Rather I see the same illness having differing host responses.

The roots of my bias are easy to spot.

In Lyndonville, many persons developed severe fatigue and other symptoms due to something. Because this took place in an isolated rural community, I feel that it must have been a single event. [The 1985 ‘Lyndonville outbreak’ of CFS affected 210 persons, 60 of whom were children, a patient group that Dr. Bell continues to track.(1)] I do not think that 15 different cause of CFS hit all at the same time. For this reason, the variation of symptom severity and even emphasis must be due to host responses rather than cause.

Two children in the same family become ill: One has acute onset, one gradual; one with fatigue as the worst symptom, one with headache. But it is too much of a coincidence that these would be different illnesses within the same family at the same time.

As an aside the CFC has stated that CFS does not run in families. This is because all may not fit the CDC research criteria. But most clinicians feel that there is a clear familial component. If three family members develop chronic fatigue at the same time, host response is more likely to explain the differences in symptoms than the possiblity of separate illnesses.

At the time of the CFS ‘outbreak’ in Lyndonville, there were those with viral infections that caused two months of fatigue. Lucky individuals. And there were siblings who got full-blown CFS. My hunch is that it is the same initiating event expressing itself differently in separate individuals.

We will know the answer to host versus illness only when an an underlying cause is known in a few persons. Then we can see if the others have evidence of the same underlying cause. This was the case with HIV infection. Some persons would have cancer, some bad pneumonias. Only when a specific initiating event was found was it possible to understand the full spectrum of HIV infection.

So now we have to wait. We can create a definition, and start from there. It is my hunch that we will soon define appropriate subgroups of CFS. And it remains to be seen whether these subgroups are artificial or will accurately define different causes of CFS.

But until this occurs, persons with CFS should not be denied appropriate diagnosis, treatment, or disability benefits if warranted. The definition of CFS now must be broad. Whether due to host response or initiating cause will be answered eventually with research.

I am going to put my money on:

• A few different initiating events,

• Causing a specific physiological injury,

• In persons with varying host response.

And I keep wondering why I am broke.

– Dr. David S Bell, MD, FAAP, Nov 1999

____

1. See Dr. Bell’s presentation on his tracking of the Lyndonville outbreak patients (“25 Year Follow-up on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Rising Incapacity,”), delivered Apr 16, 2011 as part of the Massachusetts CFIDS/ME & FM Association’s lecture series. (Allow ample time for the video download.) He discusses symptom variation, and theorizes that ‘fibromyalgia’ is a term people use when they’re able to be up and around, but their pain is considerable.

* Reproduced with kind permission of the author from the paper archives of the Lyndonville Journal, © Bell, Pollard, Robinson, 2000. All rights reserved.

Association between light exposure patterns and multidimensional health outcomes in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: findings from an observational cross-sectional cohort study

Abstract:

Background: Light is a major environmental factor regulating circadian rhythms, sleep- wake cycles, and mood-related behaviors. Patients with Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) often experience circadian disruption and poor sleep quality, which severely compromise their quality of life; however, the relationship between light exposure and illness severity remains largely unknown.

Methods: An observational cross-sectional cohort secondary study used collected data from 100 ME/CFS patients and 56 healthy controls to explore the impact of spontaneous light exposure on multidimensional health status and circulating biochemical parameters. Demographic and clinical features were assessed using validated patient-reported outcome measures. Light intensity, wrist temperature, and physical activity were continuously monitored at home over one week using wrist-worn actigraphy. Light intensity during predefined intervals and rhythmic variables of light cycle were calculated. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to reduce dimensionality of light variables. Multivariable analysis was performed adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and physical activity.

Results: Following PCA of the light patterns, two components emerged across groups with high consistency: PC1 (explaining 61.7% of the total variance) reflected higher daytime light and rhythm stability, and PC2 (explaining 16.1%) represented nocturnal/early-morning light and rhythm instability. In ME/CFS patients, light variables were more extensively associated with clinical outcomes measures (FIS-40, PSQI and SF-36) than in healthy controls (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, PC2 was associated with higher levels of VCAM-1 and triglycerides, and lower serotonin concentrations (all p < 0.05). Four distinct light patterns were identified based on PCA scores: nocturnal light, healthy, adverse, and low diurnal light. ME/CFS patients exhibiting the healthy light pattern showed significantly lower fatigue, fewer sleep complaints, reduced autonomic dysfunction, and higher quality of life compared to those with the adverse light pattern (all p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed among healthy controls.

Conclusions: Light exposure patterns show distinct associations with symptom variability in ME/CFS compared to healthy controls. More stable daytime light appears to relate to better symptom profiles, whereas irregular exposure and nocturnal light are linked to poorer health outcomes. Although causality cannot be inferred, these findings highlight light exposure as a potentially modifiable, non-invasive target for behavioral interventions aimed at improving the quality of life in ME/CFS, representing a promising emerging for future translational research.

Source: Cambras T, Domingo JC, Sanmartín-Sentañes R, Alegre-Martín J, Castro-Marrero J. Association between light exposure patterns and multidimensional health outcomes in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: findings from an observational cross-sectional cohort study. J Transl Med. 2026 Jul 3. doi: 10.1186/s12967-026-08556-6. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42399727. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12967-026-08556-6 (Full text available as PDF file)

PTPRN2 hypomethylation and PHB2-associated miR-153-3p maturation define dual epigenetic features linked to symptom variability in Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Abstract:

Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is a chronic, debilitating condition increasingly linked to epigenetic changes. With its unclear pathophysiology and no validated diagnostic biomarkers, DNA methylation becomes of interest. Specifically, DNA methylation patterns in saliva, to study ME-related epigenetic changes.

Methods: Saliva samples from 54 ME patients and 21 sedentary healthy controls were analyzed by DNA methylation array. Symptom assessment was conducted using validated questionnaires (SF-36, MFI-20, and DSQ).

Results: A significant DNA hypomethylation at the CpG site cg19803194 (Bonferroni-corrected and adjusted for saliva composition, p = 2.14 × 10− 7) within the PTPRN2 gene body was identified. This hypomethylation was associated with cognitive impairments in both sexes, such as difficulties expressing thoughts and comprehension, commonly known as “brain fog,” and respiratory symptoms in male patients. The hypomethylation also corresponded with reduced circulating levels of miR-153-3p, an intronic microRNA of PTPRN2, which was associated with impaired memory recall in both sexes. Interestingly, the mitochondrial protein Prohibitin 2 (PHB2) was associated with reduced miR-153-3p activity. This association was consistent with a predominant cytoplasmic localization of PHB2 and selective reduction of mature miR-153-3p without changes in its immature forms, suggesting involvement at a post-transcriptional stage that may be attenuated in female patients due to increased extracellular export of PHB2.

Conclusions: These findings suggest a potential epigenetic relationship in ME involving PTPRN2 body hypomethylation and PHB2-associated variation in miR-153-3p levels. While the directionality between gene-body methylation and expression remains a biological hypothesis, these results shed light on potential molecular pathways associated with symptom variability and sex differences in ME severity.

Source: Chalder L, Elremaly W, Li D, Fang Y, Caraus I, Leveau C, Elbakry M, Franco A, Godbout C, Di Tomasso G, Nepotchatykh E, Rostami-Afshari B, Gimenez M, Legault P, Moreau A. PTPRN2 hypomethylation and PHB2-associated miR-153-3p maturation define dual epigenetic features linked to symptom variability in Myalgic encephalomyelitis. J Transl Med. 2026 Apr 20. doi: 10.1186/s12967-026-08162-6. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42010606. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12967-026-08162-6 (Full text available as PDF file)

Activity monitoring and patient-reported outcome measures in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients

Abstract:

Introduction: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a disease with no validated specific and sensitive biomarker, and no standard approved treatment. In this observational study with no intervention, participants used a Fitbit activity tracker. The aims were to explore natural symptom variation, feasibility of continuous activity monitoring, and to compare activity data with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Materials and methods: In this pilot study, 27 patients with mild to severe ME/CFS, of mean age 42.3 years, used the Fitbit Charge 3 continuously for six months. Patients wore a SenseWear activity bracelet for 7 days at baseline, at 3 and 6 months. At baseline and follow-up they completed the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire-Short Form (DSQ-SF).

Results: The mean number of steps per day decreased with increasing ME/CFS severity; mild 5566, moderate 4991 and severe 1998. The day-by-day variation was mean 47% (range 25%-79%). Mean steps per day increased from the first to the second three-month period, 4341 vs 4781 steps, p = 0.022. The maximum differences in outcome measures between 4-week periods (highest vs lowest), were more evident in a group of eight patients with milder disease (baseline SF-36 PF > 50 or DSQ-SF < 55) as compared to 19 patients with higher symptom burden (SF-36 PF < 50 and DSQ-SF > 55), for SF-36 PF raw scores: 16.9 vs 3.4 points, and for steps per day: 958 versus 479 steps. The correlations between steps per day and self-reported SF-36 Physical function, SF-36 Social function, and DSQ-SF were significant. Fitbit recorded significantly higher number of steps than SenseWear. Resting heart rates were stable during six months.

Conclusion: Continuous activity registration with Fitbit Charge 3 trackers is feasible and useful in studies with ME/CFS patients to monitor steps and resting heart rate, in addition to self-reported outcome measures.

Source: Rekeland IG, Sørland K, Bruland O, Risa K, Alme K, Dahl O, Tronstad KJ, Mella O, Fluge Ø. Activity monitoring and patient-reported outcome measures in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients. PLoS One. 2022 Sep 19;17(9):e0274472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274472. PMID: 36121803. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274472 (Full text)

The impact of symptom stability on time frame and recall reliability in CFS

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: This study is an investigation of the potential impact of perceived symptom stability on the recall reliability of symptom severity and frequency as reported by individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Symptoms were recalled using three different recall timeframes (the past week, the past month, and the past six months) and at two assessment points (with one week in between each assessment).

METHODS: Participants were 51 adults (45 women and 6 men), between the ages of 29 and 66 with a current diagnosis of CFS. Multilevel Model (MLM) Analyses were used to determine the optimal recall timeframe (in terms of test-retest reliability) for reporting symptoms perceived as variable and as stable over time.

RESULTS: Headaches were recalled more reliably when they were reported as stable over time. Furthermore, the optimal timeframe in terms of test-retest reliability for stable symptoms was highly uniform, such that all Fukuda CFS symptoms were more reliably recalled at the six month timeframe. Furthermore, the optimal timeframe for CFS symptoms perceived as variable, differed across symptoms.

DISCUSSION: Symptom stability and recall timeframe are important to consider in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of the current methods for diagnosing this illness.

 

Source: Evans M, Jason LA. The impact of symptom stability on time frame and recall reliability in CFS. Cogent Psychol. 2015;2(1). pii: 1079945. Epub 2015 Aug 28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831646/ (Full article)

 

Variability in Symptoms Complicates Utility of Case Definitions

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Ambiguities in case definitions have created difficulties in replicating findings and estimating the prevalence rates for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME).

PURPOSE: The current study examined differences in occurrence rates for CFS and ME cardinal symptoms (i.e. post-exertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and neurocognitive deficits).

RESULTS: Findings indicated that there is a wide range of occurrence rates on critical symptoms of the case definition, suggesting that either the types of patients recruited differ in various settings or the questions assessing core symptoms vary in their wording or criteria among different researchers.

CONCLUSIONS: The polythetic nature of the case definition may contribute to the wide ranges of symptom occurrence that was found. In order to increase assessed reliability of the symptoms and case definitions, there is a need to better standardize data collection methods and operationalization of symptoms. This solution would reduce the heterogeneity often seen in populations of CFS patients.

 

Source: McManimen SL, Jason LA, Williams YJ. Variability in Symptoms Complicates Utility of Case Definitions. Fatigue. 2015;3(3):164-172. Epub 2015 May 12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831632/ (Full article)

 

Symptom fluctuations and daily physical activity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a case-control study

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: To compare the activity pattern of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) with healthy sedentary subjects and examine the relationship between the different parameters of performed activity (registered by an accelerometer device) and symptom severity and fluctuation (registered by questionnaires) in patients with CFS.

DESIGN: Case-control study. Participants were asked to wear an accelerometer device on the nondominant hand for 6 consecutive days. Every morning, afternoon, and evening patients scored the intensity of their pain, fatigue, and concentration difficulties on a visual analog scale.

SETTING: Patients were recruited from a specialized chronic fatigue clinic in the university hospital, where all subjects were invited for 2 appointments (for questionnaire and accelerometer adjustments). In between, activity data were collected in the subject’s normal home environment.

PARTICIPANTS: Female patients (n=67) with CFS and female age-matched healthy sedentary controls.

INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accelerometry (average activity counts, peak activity counts, ratio peak/average, minutes spent per activity category) and symptom severity (intensity of pain, fatigue, and concentration difficulties).

RESULTS: Patients with CFS were less active, spent more time sedentary, and less time lightly active (P<.05). The course of the activity level during the registration period (P interaction>.05), peak activity, and the staggering of activities (ratio peak/average) on 1 day were not different between groups (P>.05). Negative correlations (-.242 varying to -.307) were observed for sedentary activity and the ratio with symptom severity and variation on the same and the next day. Light, moderate, and vigorous, as well as the average activity and the peak activity, were positively correlated (.242 varying to .421) with symptom severity and variation.

CONCLUSIONS: The more patients with CFS are sedentary and the better activity is dispersed, the fewer symptoms and variations they experience on the same and next day. Inversely, more symptoms and variability is experienced when patients were more active that day or the previous day. The direction of these relations cannot be determined in a cross-sectional study and requires further study.

Copyright © 2011 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Meeus M, van Eupen I, van Baarle E, De Boeck V, Luyckx A, Kos D, Nijs J. Symptom fluctuations and daily physical activity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a case-control study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Nov;92(11):1820-6. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032215