Is poor sleep pummeling the immune system in ME/CFS & FM

Simmaron Research blog post by Cort Johnson, 29 August 2017: Is Poor Sleep Pummeling the Immune System in ME/CFS and Fibromyalgia? A Vicious Circle Examined

 

Most people with chronic fatigues syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) know the consequences of poor sleep – the fatigue and pain, the difficulty concentrating, the irritability and more. Sleep is when our body rejuvenates itself; no sleep – no rejuvenation. Given how important sleep is to our health, it’s no surprise that poor sleep is the first symptom many ME/CFS and FM doctors focus on in.

The effects of poor sleep go beyond just feeling bad, though. It turns out that poor sleep can have significant effects on our immune system – effects, interestingly, which are similar to what’s been found in the immune systems of people with ME/CFS and FM. There’s no evidence yet that ME/CFS and FM are sleep disorders – that the problems ME/CFS and FM patients face are caused by poor sleep – but depriving the body of sleep can cause one immunologically, at least, look like someone with these diseases.

Why Sleep Is Important for Health: A Psychoneuroimmunology Perspective
Michael R. Irwin. Annu Rev Psychol . 2015 January 3; 66: 143–172. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115205.

Irwin begins his review on sleep and immunology by noting the “explosion” in our understanding of the role sleep plays in health over the past decade. First, Irwin demolishes the idea that sleep studies are effective in diagnosing insomnia or sleep disturbances other than sleep apnea. Far more effective than a one or two-night sleep study is a home based sleep actigraph “study” which estimates sleep patterns and circadian rhythms over time and is coupled with a sleep diary.

In fact, Irwin points out that the diagnosis of insomnia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is based solely on patient reports of difficulties going to sleep, maintaining sleep, having non-restorative sleep (common in ME/CFS) and problems with daytime functioning (fatigue, falling asleep, need to nap). (Problems with daytime functioning are actually required for an insomnia diagnosis).

Several effective sleep questionnaires exist including the Insomnia Severity Index, which assesses sleep quality, fatigue, psychological symptoms, and quality of life and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, a 19-item self-report questionnaire that evaluates seven clinically derived domains of sleep difficulties (i.e., quality, latency, duration, habitual efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medications, and daytime dysfunction).

Assess Your Sleep Quality

The Immune System and Sleep
The immune system is vast and incredibly complex and has it’s own extensive set of regulatory factors, but it itself is regulated by two other systems, the HPA axis and the sympathetic nervous system. Both are involved in the stress response and both are effected in ME/CFS and FM. One – the HPA axis – is blunted in ME/CFS while the other – the sympathetic nervous system – is over-activated.

Poor sleep, it turns out activates both system. The HPA axis is generally thought to be blunted not activated in the morning in ME/CFS patients but the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), on the other hand, is whirring away at night (when it should be relaxing) in both FM and ME/CFS. (Having our “fight or flight” system acting up at night is probably not the best recipe for sleep.) ‘

Sympathetic nervous system activation, in fact, was the only factor in one Australian study which explained the poor sleep in ME/CFS. The authors of a recent FM/autonomic nervous system study went so far as to suggest that going to sleep with FM was equivalent to undergoing a stress test (!). Heart rates, muscle sympathetic nervous activation, and other evidence of an activated sympathetic nervous system response made sleep anything but restful for FM patients. In fact, the authors proposed sleep problems could be a heart of fibromyalgia.

Many questions have involved the roles pathogens play in ME/CFS and FM. That’s intriguing given the almost universally poor sleep found in the disorders and role recent studies indicate that sleep plays priming the immune systems pump to fight off invaders. During sleep pathogen fighting immune cells move to the lymph nodes where they search for evidence of pathogens. If pathogens are present those immune cells mount a furious (and metabolically expensive) immune response.

Metabolism is a big issue in ME/CFS right now but guess what? Poor sleep also appears to interfere with producing the metabolic reserves our immune cells need to fight off infections.

We often think of inflammation in negative terms but the pro-inflammatory cytokines our immune cells produce are necessary to fight off invaders. Reductions of a key pro-inflammatory cytokine called IL-6 during poor sleep hampers our immune system’s ability to destroy pathogens.

Getting your circadian rhythms (sleep and wake times) out of whack isn’t doing you any good either. Having insomnia or altered sleep patterns (very late bedtimes) appears to cause deficits in two hormones (growth hormone (GH) and prolactin) produced during early sleep which enhance T-cell activity and promote pathogen defense. That suggests that anyone with an altered circadian rhythm (i.e. late bedtimes) might want to do their best to get to bed earlier.

While pro-inflammatory cytokine production at night primes the immune system to fight off pathogens, the day time is a different story. Chronic sleep deprivation is associated increased daytime levels of several immune and endothelial factors ((IL-6, TNF) and endothelial markers (E-selectin, sICAM-1) that are associated with chronic inflammation.

One study found IL-6 levels actually became flipped in sleep deprived people; they were low at night (thereby hampering their pathogen fighting ability) and high during the day (adding to inflammation).

The situation may be even worse if a sleep deprived person is fighting off an infection.  One study found skyrocketing levels of damaging pro-inflammatory cytokines when sleep deprived people were given a toxin (LPS) associated with infections. Those damaging cytokines did not show up in healthy people. That suggested that besides the infection they probably weren’t doing too well at fighting off, sleep-deprived people now had inflammation to deal with.

As it often happens, women seem to have gotten the short end of the stick with immune issues and it’s no different with sleep. Women appear to be more susceptible than men to inflammation that occurs as the result of poor sleep; it’s women, not men, who show elevations of pro-inflammatory cytokines the day after getting less than eight hours of sleep. (Men show elevations of pro-inflammatory cytokines after getting less than six hours of sleep).

Many people with ME/CFS/FM get too little sleep but sleeping more than normal, it turns out, is not such a great idea either. People sleeping much longer than normal tend to show the same kinds of elevations of pro-inflammatory cytokines as do people who get too little sleep.

The C-reactive Protein Sleep, ME/CFS and Fibromyalgia Connection
CRP is associated with a variety of inflammatory states resulting from infection, cancer and stress. Increased levels of the inflammatory marker, C-reactive protein (CRP), are increasingly being associated with sleep disturbance.

The CRP – sleep connection is intriguing given Jarred Younger’s preliminary finding of increased C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in a subset of ME/CFS patients, and a recent finding in increased CRP in FM.

See Early Results Suggest Two Radically Different Immune Subsets Present in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)

Those findings might not be so surprising. Ten days or so of partial sleep deprivation in healthy controls caused “robust” increases in CRP levels. In fact, the CRP-poor sleep connection is so robust that simply scoring above five on the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI >5) strongly suggests that your CRP levels are elevated. A huge nurses study (n=10,908) found that non-restorative sleep – probably the most common sleep issue in ME/CFS/FM – was associated with increased CRP levels even in these healthy individuals.

The early or innate immune response has long been thought to play a special role in ME/CFS. This immune response involving NK cells, neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells and others constitutes the immune system’s first defense against pathogens. Immune cells involved in the early immune response called monocytes/macrophages also play a key role in producing chronic inflammation.

NK cell activity hits a low during sleep but then begins to rise. That the rise is blunted in people with poor sleep probably comes as no surprise to NK cell challenged ME/CFS patients.

ME/CFS isn’t the only disease associated with NK cell problems; depression is as well and having poor sleep increases your risk of being depressed twofold. Plus, for reasons that are not understood, poor sleep appears to trigger stress and depression initiated reductions in NK cell activity; i.e. if you’re having poor sleep and are under considerable stress or are depressed – it’s likely that your NK cells are punking out when it’s time to defend the body from invaders.

We know that having a chronic illness increases ones chances of becoming depressed markedly, but so does poor sleep. In fact, Irwin reports that having insomnia for over a year increases your risk of becoming depressed 14-fold. That finding is leading some of the more progressive psychologists to focus on preventing or ameliorating sleep problems.

Sleep disturbance also induces a shift toward a type-2 immune response often seen in ME/CFS and in allergic and autoimmune diseases. Just one poor night’s sleep the night before a person is given a vaccine is enough markedly reduce the effectiveness of that vaccine. A study showing just how frighteningly malleable the immune system can be to stressors such as poor sleep found that a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of an influenza vaccine persisted over a year. Even after three doses of the vaccine and a booster shot were given adults getting fewer than six hours of sleep a night still received less protection from a hepatitis B vaccination than normal.

The common cold, of course, is no joke to some people with chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and FM when it lingers and lingers. Studies suggest that poor and fragmented sleep – which is, of course, common in ME/CFS/FM – significantly increases one’s susceptibility to the common cold. If you’re catching a lot of colds or if they linger and linger, poor sleep could be one reason why.

What To Do?
OK – so poor sleep places a big hurt on our immune system’s effectiveness. What to do about it?  No studies, unfortunately, have examined the effect of sleep drugs on immune factors so we’re not going to go there.

Several studies have, however, assessed the efficacy of stress reduction therapies. Dr. Irwin notes reports that practices such as cognitive behavioral therapy, Tai Chia and yoga which tamp down sympathetic nervous system hyper-arousal can help improve immune functioning. Tai chi has even been found to improve vaccine effectiveness and reduce inflammation.

Other studies point to the ability of mindfulness based meditations and/or yoga to reduce the cytokine levels and pro-inflammatory gene expression caused by poor sleep.  One remarkable study showed a 50% reduction in CRP levels in insomnia patients after a year of cognitive behavioral therapy.

Check out more sleep resources including sleep tests and sleep aids in Health Rising’s Sleep Resource Section

Poor sleep, then, doesn’t just make you feel tired and irritable; it takes a pretty good whack at your immune system, as well.  Getting better sleep through better sleep hygiene, supplements (melatonin), calming botanicals (valerian root, L-theanine, passiflora, Melissa, Scutellaria, etc.), stress reduction techniques (meditation, mindfulness, meditation), and sleep medications might just give your immune system a boost.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Is poor sleep pummeling the immune system in ME/CFS & FM

Invisible illness increases risk of suicidal ideation: the role of social workers in preventing suicide

Article abstract:

Invisible illness increases risk of suicidal ideation: The role of social workers in preventing suicide, by Cathy L Pederson, Kathleen Gorman-Ezell, Greta Hochstetler-Mayer in Health & Social Work, June 14, 2017 [Preprint]

Many chronic, invisible illnesses that involve chronic pain – fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and myalgic encephalomyelitis – can greatly affect both physical and mental health.

Although these illnesses are not fatal, they severely affect function and quality of life (Pederson & Brook, 2017). It is interesting to note that these disorders disproportionately affect women (Alonso & Hernan, 2008; Branco et al., 2009; Carew et al., 2009), who are often thought to exaggerate symptoms and may not be taken seriously by the medical community.

One study showed that nearly 50 percent of women with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome fell into the high-risk group for suicide (Pederson & Brook, 2017). Clearly, we need to care more for these chronically ill women to decrease suicide risk.

Posted in News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Invisible illness increases risk of suicidal ideation: the role of social workers in preventing suicide

Antibodies to adrenergic & muscarinic receptors in ME/CFS

Blog post, by Paolo Maccallini, 29 August 2017: Antibodies to adrenergic and muscarinic receptors in ME/CFS,

During the Community Symposium on the molecular basis of ME/CFS two different groups of researchers reported on the increased level of antibodies to beta adrenergic and muscarinic receptors in sera from ME/CFS patients vs healthy controls (Figure 1). These new data have been collected independently by Alan Light (University of Utah) and Jonas Bergquist (Uppsala Universitet). Bergquist also reported that these autoantibodies can’t be found in cerebrospinal fluid from ME/CFS patients.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Two slides from the symposium: on the left data from Uppsala Universitet, on the right data from a group of patients studied by Alan Light (University of Utah).

Read more about what is already known and Alan Light’s theory of Molecular Mimicry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Antibodies to adrenergic & muscarinic receptors in ME/CFS

Sleep patterns among patients with chronic fatigue

Research Abstract:

Sleep patterns among patients with chronic fatigue: A polysomnography-based study, by Evelina Pajediene, Indre Bileviciute-Ljungar and Danielle Friberg in The Clinical Respiratory Journal [Version online: 2 AUG 2017]

Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to detect treatable sleep disorders among patients complaining of chronic fatigue by using sleep questionnaires and polysomnography.

Methods:
Patients were referred to hospital for investigations and rehabilitation because of a suspected diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The criteria for further referral to full-night polysomnography (PSG) were symptoms of excessive daytime sleepiness and/or tiredness in the questionnaires.

Results:
Of a total of 381 patients, 78 (20.5%) patients underwent PSG: 66 women and 12 men, mean age 48.6 years, standard deviation ±9.9 years. On the basis of the PSG, 31 (40.3%) patients were diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnoea, 7 (8.9%) patients with periodic limb movement disorder, 32 (41.0%) patients with restless legs syndrome and 54 (69.3%) patients had one or more other sleep disorder. All patients were grouped into those who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS (n = 55, 70.5%) and those who did not (n = 23, 29.5%). The latter group had significantly higher respiratory (P = .01) and total arousal (P = .009) indexes and a higher oxygen desaturation index (P = .009).

Conclusions:
More than half of these chronic fatigue patients, who also have excessive daytime sleepiness and/or tiredness, were diagnosed with sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnoea, periodic limb movement disorder and/or restless legs syndrome. Patients with such complaints should undergo polysomnography, fill in questionnaires and be offered treatment for sleep disorders before the diagnose ME/CFS is set.

 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sleep patterns among patients with chronic fatigue

ME/CFS patients’ reports of symptom changes following CBT, GET & pacing treatments

Research abstract:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys, by Keith Geraghty, Mark Hann, Stoyan Kurtev in Journal of Health Psychology, 29 August 2017 [Preprint]

 

Cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy are promoted as evidence-based treatments for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.

This article explores patients’ symptom responses following these treatments versus pacing therapy, an approach favoured by many sufferers. We analyse data from a large cross-sectional patient survey (n = 1428) and compare our findings with those from comparable patient surveys (n = 16,665), using a mix of descriptive statistics and regression analysis modelling.

Findings from analysis of primary and secondary surveys suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy is of benefit to a small percentage of patients (8%-35%), graded exercise therapy brings about large negative responses in patients (54%-74%), while pacing is the most favoured treatment with the lowest negative response rate and the highest reported benefit (44%-82%).

Article Conclusion:

This article presents results pertaining to ME/CFS patient reports of symptom changes following CBT, GET or PT. While a small percentage of patients report some benefit from either CBT or GET, the majority experience no benefit.

In contrast, pacing brings about the greatest positive impact with the least negative reactions. GET brings about a substantive deterioration in symptoms for almost half of patients and it is the least favoured treatment, compared with pacing, which is most favoured by patients. Adding GET in combination with other treatments worsens outcomes and contributes to increases in illness severity, whereas adding pacing in combination improves outcomes.

These findings conflict with evidence from clinical trials that report CBT and GET to be superior treatments, but are consistent with findings from multiple patient surveys that span 15 years and multiple countries.

Therapists’ views have an impact on patient outcomes, with views of ME/CFS being a physical illness associated with better outcomes than views of ME/CFS being psychological illness. Further research is needed to validate these findings and to investigate if pacing is a viable alternative treatment approach in ME/CFS.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ME/CFS patients’ reports of symptom changes following CBT, GET & pacing treatments

Report of the Community Symposium on the Molecular Basis of ME/CFS

The first Open Medicine Foundation Community Symposium on the Molecular Basis of ME/CFS

On August 12, 2017, the Community Symposium on the Molecular Basis of ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) convened ~ 300 researchers, clinicians, patients, caregivers, families, and advocates at Stanford University – and nearly 3000 more via livestream.

Find out what happened

Posted in News | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Report of the Community Symposium on the Molecular Basis of ME/CFS

Scientific progress stumbles without a valid case definition

OUP blog post, by Leonard A. Jason, August 20th 2017: Scientific progress stumbles without a valid case definition

Current estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the number of people in the United States with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) increased from about 20,000 to as many as four million within a ten-year period. If this were true, we would be amidst an epidemic of unprecedented proportions. I believe that these increases in prevalence rates can be explained by unreliable case definitions. For example, in 1994, the CDC’s case definition did not require patients to have core symptoms of the CFS.

Making matters worse, in 2005, in an effort to operationalize their inadequate case definition, the CDC broadened the case definition so that ten times as many patients would be identified. Even though these estimates were challenged as bringing into the CFS case definition many who did not have this illness such as Major Depressive Disorder, as late as 2016, the CDC re-affirmed the merit in this broader case definition.

Another misguided effort occurred in 2015, when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) developed a revised clinical case definition that at least did specify core symptoms, but unfortunately also eliminated almost all exclusionary conditions, so those who had had previously been diagnosed with other illnesses such as Melancholic Depressive Disorders, could now be classified as meeting the new IOM criteria.

This case definition has the unfortunate consequence of again broadening the types of patients that will now be identified, thus their effort also will inappropriately select many patients with other diseases as meeting the new IOM criteria. Making matters even worse, the clinical case definition was not designed to be used for research purposes, but it is clearly being used in this way, and one group of researchers has already inaccurately reported that the new clinical case definition is as effective at selecting patients as research case definitions.

This comedy of errors becomes even more tragic with the recent development of a new pediatric case definition. As with past efforts, data were not collected to field test this new set of criteria. Even worse, medical personnel are asked to make decisions regarding symptoms without being providing any validated questionnaires, and this has the effect of introducing unacceptable levels of diagnostic unreliability. Scoring rules are so poorly developed that guidelines indicate that a child needs to have most symptoms at a moderate or severe level, but in reality, according to the flawed scoring rules of this case definition, youth can be classified as having the illness even if they report all symptoms as mild.

These criteria further suggest that “personality disorders” should be assessed in children, as these disorders are listed as psychiatric exclusionary conditions; however, personality disorders cannot be diagnosed (or reliably assessed) prior to the age of 18, as personality characteristics are not fully developed until adulthood. Finally, these authors also require the youth to have at least six months of illness duration, whereas the Canadian criteria and others suggest that children with three months duration can be diagnosed with the illness. Other significant limitation of this primer have been mentioned by others.

In summary, these authors failed to incorporate standard psychometric procedures that include first specifying symptoms and logical scoring rules, developing consistent ways to reliably assess these symptoms, and then collecting data to ensure that the proposed criteria are reliable and valid.

When a field of inquiry is either unable or unwilling to develop a valid case definition, as has occurred with CFS, the repercussions are catastrophic for the research and patient community. In a sense like a house of cards, if the bottom level is not established with a sturdy foundation, all upper levels of cards are vulnerable to collapse.

Science is based on having sound case definitions that allow investigators to determine who has and does not have an illness.

Having porous and invalid case definitions, whether clinical or research, affects not only prevalence estimates of CFS, but also has dire consequences for treatment approaches, as when individuals who have solely affective disorders are misclassified as having CFS, and when they improve from psychological interventions, it is easy to erroneously conclude that CFS is a psychiatric illness, which further stigmatizes patients.

Leonard A. Jason is a professor of clinical and community psychology at DePaul University, director of the Center for Community Research, and the author of Principles of Social Change and co-editor of the Handbook of Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods.

Posted in News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Scientific progress stumbles without a valid case definition

Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME/CFS

Article abstract:

Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME/CFS, by Helen Spandler, Meg Allen in Social Theory & Health, v 15 pp 1–15 [Published Online: 16 August 2017]

ME/CFS is a medically contested illness and its understanding, framing and treatment has been the subject of heated debate.

This paper examines why framing the condition as a psychiatric issue—what we refer to as ‘psychiatrisation’—has been so heavily contested by patients and activists. We argue that this contestation is not simply about stigmatising mental health conditions, as some have suggested, but relates to how people diagnosed with mental illness are treated in society, psychiatry and the law.

We highlight the potentially harmful consequences of psychiatrisation which can lead to people’s experiential knowledge being discredited. This stems, in part, from a psychiatric-specific form of ‘epistemic injustice’ which can result in unhelpful, unwanted and forced treatments.

This understanding helps explain why the psychiatrisation of ME/CFS has become the focus of such bitter debate and why psychiatry itself has become such a significant field of contention, for both ME/CFS patients and mental health service users/survivors.

Notwithstanding important differences, both reject the way psychiatry denies patient explanations and understandings, and therefore share a collective struggle for justice and legitimation. Reasons why this shared struggle has not resulted in alliances between ME and mental health activists are noted.

Excerpt:

The contested framing of ME/CFS

On the one hand, ME activists argue that a narrow focus on the psychological elements of the illness has blocked bio-medical research and treatment (Jason 2012). For example, in the UK, the Department of Health controversially invested five million pounds into researching the benefits of psychological therapies (‘the PACE trial’), whereas an institute recently established at the University of East Anglia as a centre of excellence for biomedical research into ME/CFS had to be crowdsource funded by patients. This highlights the difficulties medical researchers experience in securing grants for CFS/ME research (Kitei 2014).

Some commentators have noted that less research funding is spent on conditions where patients are seen as responsible for, or contributing to, their illness, as can be seen in the underfunding of research into lung disease and liver cancer (Johnson 2015; Dimmock et al. 2016). When an illness is framed as psychological, it is people’s H. Spandler, M. Allen reactions, emotions and behaviour, rather than any underlying illness, which become the focus of scrutiny, and it is a short step from this to the assumption that people are ‘responsible’ for their illness and recovery.

In addition, critics argue that assuming ME/CFS is a psychological problem has resulted in poorly designed research studies which may have included people without the condition and excluded those severely affected by the condition from the studies (Jason et al. 1997; Jason 2012; ME Association 2015; Tuller 2015). ME activists argue that this situation has:

diminished the legitimacy and belief in the severity of the illness among physicians and allowed the psychiatrists to appropriate the condition to their own realm of influence…and put pressure on governments to apply psychiatric labels in order to reduce work claims for illness compensations (Millen 2001, p. 8).

On the other hand, the psychiatric profession has portrayed ME activists as blocking progress by campaigning against any psychological or psychiatric research investment and treatments (Smith and Wessely 2014). Some psychiatrists and medical practitioners have criticised ME activists for their ‘strident’ denial of any psychological component to their illness as ‘frankly offensive’ by ‘stigmatising mental health patients and vilifying psychiatry’ (ibid: 218).

Yet both sides of this divisive debate have found it difficult to evidence their case. Whilst ‘psychology’ is seen as an important factor in people’s recovery from many types of illnesses, the psychiatrisation of ME/CFS means that psychology is often seen as the underlying determining factor of the illness, not just an additional element in recovery (Jason 2012). This assumption has been hard to prove, or indeed disprove.

Similarly, whilst ME/CFS activists can point to some physiological abnormalities in patients (Institute of Medicine 2015), to date they have been unable to generalise from these findings. Whilst more research and better diagnostic tests may well establish a physiological basis for the condition, the evidence is presently weak. Moreover, a clear-cut division between ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ is hard to sustain in practice. It is important to note that the discipline of psychiatry has considerably more power and influence than patients’ organisations and individual sufferers, so these debates are not conducted on a level-playing field. In the meantime, people who experience contested illnesses, like ME/CFS, face a particular struggle for legitimation or, what has been referred to as, ‘epistemic justice’.

 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME/CFS

Exercise tests suggest autoimmunity causes the exertion problems in CFS, FM & POTS

Health rising blog post, by Cort Johnson, 16 August 2017: Exercise Tests Suggest Autoimmunity Causes the Exertion Problems in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and POTS

Researchers and doctors get interested in ME/CFS in different ways. Many have a personal connection, but for David Systrom,  a pulmonologist, it was all about demand. He didn’t seek chronic fatigue syndrome patients out – quite the contrary.  When Systrom was given control of a clinical cardiopulmonary lab, he started doing invasive cardiopulmonary exercise tests (iCPET’s) on people with exercise intolerance. Once word of that got out, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, POTS and other patients starting pouring in.

It wasn’t the patients seeking Systrom out – it was their doctors; they finally had a place to send their strange exercise intolerant patients to. Rheumatologists, cardiologists, neurologists, and infectious disease specialists have gladly sent their patients his way for years.  It’s not a small number. Systrom suggests that 10 percent of people with exercise intolerance fit this profile. Those referrals have lead to 1,500 highly sophisticated exercise tests, about 700 of which were done on people with ME/CFS/FM/POTS.

Systrom’s had his eye on chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) for a while, but up until now he’s been looking at exercise intolerance in general. That’s why, despite the fact that he has one of the biggest, and certainly the most sophisticated, database of exercise results in ME/CFS, he’s mostly unknown to researchers and patients.

Armed with a grant from an anonymous donor to The Solve ME/CFS Initiative (SMCI) to support his work, Systrom, is for the first time focusing a study solely on ME/CFS.

Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing (iCPET)
Systrom has taken exercise testing in ME/CFS to the next level with his invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing (iCPET). Non-invasive cardiopulmonary exercise (CPET) testing can do a lot of things. It can demonstrate that exercise intolerance is present, define the aerobic and anaerobic contributions to exercise, determine if lung problems are present and others, but with an iCPET researchers can dig much deeper.

Systrom’s an acknowledged expert in the iCPET field; in 2013 he was the senior author of the first review paper on iCPET and in 2016 he co-wrote the first methodology paper explaining how to do it correctly.

One catheter goes into the pulmonary artery

Invasive CPET’s involve the insertion of catheters into the pulmonary artery and radial arteries that monitor blood flow, oxygen content and other factors. These catheters allow researchers to determine if the problems with oxygen are occurring in the lungs or in the muscles, where oxygen uptake is occurring and so on. Because iCPET can determine changes in venous blood O2 occurring with exercise, they’re able to determine how much oxygen the muscles are using. The technique can therefore be used to diagnose mitochondrial issues.

iCPET tests needed to identify three under-recognized causes of exercise intolerance, the third of which concerns ME/CFS:  preload failure or the inability of the blood vessels to provide the heart with enough blood to pump effectively.  Several studies suggest that preload failure is causing the small hearts in ME/CFS.

In the 2013 review article Systrom explained what happens (or should happen) when we exercise.

  1. Muscles need oxygen to generate energy.
  2. During exercise, increased breathing (ventilation) in the lungs and increased gas exchange between the lungs and blood provides more oxygen to the blood.
  3. First the heart increases it’s stroke volume so that it can shoot more blood out to the muscles.
  4. Once the heart maximum stroke volume is reached, the heart rate begins to increase in order to pump out more and more blood.
  5. In order to provide the increased levels of blood to the heart, the veins leading to it enlarge so that they can accommodate more blood.

It’s All About Oxygen
First, aerobic (oxygen-oriented) energy production mostly prevails. When the limits of aerobic metabolism are reached, though, one’s “anaerobic threshold” is reached. At that point, a non-oxygen way of producing energy called anaerobic metabolism becomes prominent. Two toxic byproducts of anaerobic metabolism, lactate and CO2, build up and cause fatigue, pain, etc.  (Anaerobic thresholds are identified during the CPET test by an abrupt increase in CO2 levels). Here’s the key part for ME/CFS, FM and POTS patients from Systrom’s 2013 paper:

“People with low anaerobic thresholds; that is, people who quickly exhaust their ability to generate energy aerobically and rapidly enter into anaerobic metabolism have one of two problems: either the oxygen isn’t getting to the mitochondria in their muscles or the mitochondria aren’t taking it up….

THREE PATTERNS
In a June interview, Systrom stated that about half of his patients have POTS/ ME/CFS or FM. When he tests them, a couple of different patterns show up – a pattern of dysautonomia, which reflects problems with the blood vessels, and reduced oxygen uptake pattern reflecting other problems.

  • Dysautonomia – the primary problem is inadequate venoconstriction; i.e. the autonomic nerves are not constricting the veins enough to propel sufficient amounts of blood (i.e. oxygen) to the heart for exercise or other activities to take place. Damage to the nerves in the arteries may be present as well.
  • Reduced skeletal muscle oxygen uptake -the  mitochondria are not taking in as much oxygen as they should.
  • Genetic issues – are not nearly as common as the other two, but Systrom can at times find genetic issues.

Read more about Systrom’s research and potential drug treatment (mestinon)

 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exercise tests suggest autoimmunity causes the exertion problems in CFS, FM & POTS

Inflammation correlates with symptoms in CFS

Research overview abstract:

Inflammation correlates with symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome, by Anthony L Komaroff in PNAS August 15, 2017

It is not unusual for patients who say they are sick to have normal results on standard laboratory testing. The physician often concludes that there is no “real” illness and that the patients’ symptoms likely stem from a psychological disorder. An alternative conclusion, often honored in the breach, is that the standard laboratory tests are measuring the wrong things.

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)―also called myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome―is such an illness. Often, the condition begins suddenly, following an “infectious-like” illness. For years, patients do not return to full health. The illness waxes and wanes, and at its worst leads patients to be bedridden or unable to leave their homes. A report from the National Academies estimates that CFS affects up to 2.5 million people in the United States and generates direct and indirect expenses of $17–24 billion annually (1). The most widely used case definition (2) consists only of symptoms. This, along with typically normal results on standard laboratory tests, has raised the question of whether there are any “real” objective, biological abnormalities in CFS. In PNAS, Montoya et al. (3) report the latest evidence that there are such abnormalities.

Indeed, research over the past 30 y has discovered pathology involving the central nervous system (CNS) and autonomic nervous system (ANS), energy metabolism (with associated oxidative and nitrosative stress), and the immune system, as described in a detailed review (4). This Commentary will briefly summarize the evidence, providing citations only to work published since this review. I will then place the report by Montoya et al. (3) in context, and speculate about the pathophysiology of the illness.

Read more

 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inflammation correlates with symptoms in CFS