THE ROLE OF INFECTION IN INITIATING
ME/CFS
Introduction
It
has been over a year and a half since the last Lyndonville
News, and I would apologize. Writing for me
has always had a mood requirement, and I am very fortunate
that I do not support myself by writing as I would be getting
quite hungry by now. I do not like to write about ME/CFS
if it is just making words. But I do like to write if I
feel an enthusiasm about a topic, or there is something
exciting happening. As far as the Lyndonville
News, I feel like a grizzly bear coming out
of a cave in early spring, ready to get to work. We’ll
see.
I
would also apologize to those who have sent e-mails to the
web site. I do not seem to be able to respond to them as
I once did, and in general, it is better not to write. I
want to thank Fireside Design Studio and Carrie’s
patience during this past dry spell. She does a lot of work
and has never charged a penny for it.
I
am cautiously considering writing another book. Of course,
I am just coming out of winter’s lethargy and projects
seem much more appealing than when I am mired down in the
middle. But it has been over 15 years since The
Disease of a Thousand Names and 12 since The
Doctor’s Guide. Lots of new thinking
and new studies published. I am considering naming it a
Disease of Two Thousand Names,
because the most progress has been in creating new names
for the illness.
Anyway,
the book would have three parts. Part I would be clinical
descriptions, not much different now from fifteen years
ago. Part II would be Mechanisms of Disease, and here is
the first chapter of this part, dealing with the relationship
of infection to the illness, and later on, how the infection
sets off the abnormal vascular and energy production problems
that cause the symptoms. By the time I get this finished
(if I get it finished) it will be quite different so you
will have to buy the book at that time. Remember you are
only getting a first draft so don’t bug me about the
little stuff—spelling, grammar, biochemistry and science.

Chapter
II-1: The Role of Infection in Initiating ME/CFS
Part II: Mechanism
of Disease in ME/CFS
While the question of what causes ME/CFS is logically the
first question on people’s mind, it is almost an inappropriate
question. It has occupied many years of research on the
illness, and has caused enormous confusion, yet now fades
to the background because it is becoming apparent that it
is almost irrelevant. And the difficulty in finding “a
cause” has been one of the prime reasons that people
have doubted the reality of this illness. What has become
apparent is that there are many “causes”, and
what is important is not so much the initiating event or
infection, but the mechanism of what perpetuates the illness.
In other words, it is not the actual onset that matters,
but why the symptoms do not resolve after the onset.
The
confusion relates to the fact that the initiating factors
for ME/CFS are commonplace. Every day patients come into
my office with something that can begin the nightmare of
ME/CFS. Fortunately, the vast majority of persons resolves
their problem and never comes to know of the nightmare that
could have been.
I
would estimate that there may be more than ten causes of
the process we are calling ME/CFS. But for the sake of simplicity,
let us restrict ourselves to just a few. The first in this
list would be infection. It is the classic presentation
of a previously healthy person who develops a commonplace
sinus infection or bronchitis and then never gets better.
That seventy five percent of all persons with ME/CFS begin
this way is a reasonable guess. The remaining will initiate
their illness with head injury, other types of neurologic
injury, toxic exposures, or some type of stress. For some,
the illness comes on gradually without a clear initiating
event.
Assessing
the cause is much more difficult than it would seem. It
is human nature to seek explanations, and sometimes we will
come up with an explanation even if it is wrong. It has
been my experience that when I ask a patient how the illness
began, they will say, “with a fever, on January 18th.”
On further questioning, however, they had been tired and
run down for weeks before, and had recently developed migraine
headaches and irritable bowel. Perhaps the episode of fever
merely pointed out a process well underway already.
Infection
is the first of the causes we will examine here. The infection
may be due to a virus (hence the older term “post-viral
fatigue”), or it may be due to a parasite, bacteria,
rickettsia, or other type of infectious organism. It can
be difficult to identify the initiating infection, because
by the time you diagnose ME/CFS at six months of illness,
it is nearly impossible to find by the standard tests because
too much time has elapsed. For a standard infection, for
example, it is necessary to measure the antibodies at the
beginning, before the body has made an immune response,
and again at six weeks when the immune response is cranking
out antibodies. This is never done in ME/CFS because during
the initiating infection it is assumed that it will be just
another trivial virus that is going to go away by itself.
As one of my patients said in disgust, “just another
damn virus.” Soon a technology called PCR will be
available to look for viral load, to measure the actual
virus load of the body, and not the body’s response
to it. More on that later.
There
is a second issue that looms and has caused an enormous
amount of confusion. Does the infection that starts ME/CFS
go away after initiating a process, a “hit and run”
onset, or is the illness due to a persisting infection?
This is the critical question because if it is a “hit
and run” illness, the damage caused by the infection
cannot be treated with antibiotics or antivirals because
it is too late; if ME/CFS is a persistent or ongoing infection,
then the antibiotic or antiviral, (if you choose the right
one) will do the trick and cure the illness. Figure II-1:1
illustrates this difference.

Figure
II-1:1
An
example of both mechanisms is illustrated by the strep germ.
An initial infection causes a strep throat, which may go
away by itself, even without antibiotics. Sometimes there
is persistent infection, an abscess in the tonsils, and
this can be treated and cured by penicillin. Other times,
the strep germ resolves normally but has started the process
of rheumatic fever, and at a certain point giving the penicillin
is not going to cure the problem because it is not simply
a persistent infection. In rheumatic fever, the strep germ
began an illness that takes on a life of its own.
Let
us look at some of the infectious agents that have been
implicated in ME/CFS, with specific reference to the question
of whether evidence points to either “hit and run”
phenomenon or persistent infection.
a) Epstein-Barr virus
Long
ago, what we now call ME/CFS was called chronic mononucleosis.
Oddly enough, fifty years later it turns out that this name
was more accurate than anything we now have. We became confused
when we could not identify the virus of mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr
virus or EBV) causing an ongoing infection. But clinicians
knew that some persons who got mono just did not recover
properly. A study in Dubbo, Australia, has helped to clarify
this.
In
this study, researchers identified patients who came down
with mononucleosis and two other infections, and followed
them to see what happened. The majority had an unpleasant
time for a few weeks and then started to improve with complete
recovery within a month or so. However, of the 101 persons
with Epstein-Barr virus mononucleosis, six percent developed
ME/CFS one year later. The most important predictor of developing
the illness was the severity of initiating infection, and
neither emotions nor history of psychiatric problems was
a factor at all. (Jones, J. Dubbo Infections Outcome Study.
Presented at the 2004 AACFS meetings Madison, WI.) For these
persons, it can be said that mononucleosis, or rather the
Epstein-Barr virus, was the cause of ME/CFS.
The
next part of this study is the more important part. The
investigators looked at the differences that existed between
those people who had a regular course of mononucleosis,
and those who developed ME/CFS. While all the answers are
far from in, there appears to be a series of events that
takes place that causes the persistence of illness in some
persons. Understanding this process is critical to interrupting
it, and we will be discussing this process in the other
chapters.
In
past years the attempts to treat ME/CFS have revolved around
attempts to kill the virus or organism which has caused
the illness. For example, if Epstein-Barr virus were to
cause or start ME/CFS, then why not treat the person with
antiviral drugs to eradicate the virus? There are several
good anti-viral drugs effective against Epstein-Barr virus,
but they have not worked in treating ME/CFS. This is because
while EBV may have set off the illness, the Epstein-Barr
virus has resolved by the time we attempt to treat it. It
is like a hiker on the top of a mountain who kicks a rock
off the edge and then walks away. The rock tumbles down
the hillside, picking up speed and other rocks and starts
a landslide. The hiker walks back to his car and hears about
the landslide on the evening news.
b) Poliomyelitis
EBV
is one infectious agent that has been associated with ME/CFS,
but there are many others. Historically the enterovirus
family of viruses has been connected to the development
of ME/CFS and has been the center of interest in the UK
ever since the Royal Free Hospital outbreak in 1950. Poliovirus
belongs to this family and is well known to cause post-infectious
fatigue, called the post-polio syndrome.
There
are two separate difficulties that come from infection with
the poliovirus. First is damage to the spinal cord which
results in acute paralysis; it is this which the infection
is noted for and which caused the widespread panic in the
1950’s. Second is the “post-polio syndrome”
characterized by exhaustion, progressive muscle weakness,
pain, and other symptoms. It is likely that the post polio
syndrome is due to damage to the midbrain that does not
become fully apparent for some time. However, it appears
that the poliovirus itself is cleared by the immune system
whether or not damage is done. The later problems are unlikely
to be due to a persistent infection.
Other
enteroviruses, and there are many, have been implicated
in ME/CFS for over twenty years. During the period that
this was being studied most intensely, an understanding
of the immune response or cascade initiated by the infection
was in its infancy, and emphasis was placed on looking for
remnants of the virus in muscle tissue of patients with
ME/CFS. Interestingly, there is evidence of increased presence
or persistence of enterovirus in muscle tissue.
c) Parvovirus
Parvovirus
is an exceptionally interesting candidate to cause both
ME/CFS and FM, and the evidence is in conflict as to whether
this “cause” is from the initiation of a cytokine
cascade or from persistent infection. This is an important
candidate to study in that parvovirus B19 infection may
cause no symptoms at all, a minor infection, or prolonged
complications, including ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, anemia, arthritis,
heart muscle infection, and other problems. How this virus
can do this is critical to know. Jonathon Kerr and co-workers
have noted that 10 to 15% of parvovirus B19 patients developed
ME/CFS, and up to 60% developed fibromyalgia. On standard
testing, these patients appeared as if they had cleared
the initiating infection effectively despite having persistent
symptoms. Importantly, one patient with ME/CFS developing
from parvovirus B19 infection had no antibodies at all against
it one year after developing ME/CFS. This means that it
is unreliable to look for parvovirus once the ME/CFS has
developed. However, persistent fatigue was associated with
the presence of gamma interferon and tumor necrosis factor
alpha. This would imply that symptom persistence would be
related to the immune activation and the presence of cytokines.
However
they also did a couple of other things. They looked at the
pro-inflammatory cytokines, and attempted to see if there
was an abnormality in the genetic makeup of an individual
who had persistence of symptoms after infection. They found
that one gene in particular (Ku80 gene) was abnormal. This
gene happens to be a B19 co-receptor. Therefore, this would
give a potential mechanism for virus persistence and ongoing
infection. In addition, they published three cases of persistent
chronic fatigue treated with intravenous gamma globulin
which resolved persistent B19 in the blood, the cytokine
dysregulation, as well as the symptoms of ME/CFS.
There
are several take home messages from their studies. First,
this virus may “cause” both ME/CFS and fibromyalgia,
strengthening the link between these two conditions. Secondly,
if you can find parvovirus as an initiating infection and
if you find persistence of this virus in the blood stream,
there may be an effective treatment available, but this
requires aggressive clinical management starting from the
first week of severe fatigue. Thirdly, both immune system
mediators and persistent infection may play a role in ME/CFS.
And fourthly, if no investigations had been carried out
during the first two years of illness, it may be impossible
to detect parvovirus B19 even if it had initiated the illness.
d) Q fever
Q
fever happens to be one of my personal favorites in the
study of infections which initiate CFS for strictly personal
reasons. I had the good fortune to visit Professor Barry
Marmion in 1987 in Australia and see a few of his “Post
Q fever” patients who looked exactly like my patients
in Lyndonville. My patients had been exposed to unpasturized
milk but did not have Q fever. Dr Marmion’s patients
had classical Q fever and had been treated properly right
from the beginning.
Q
fever is an infection caused by Coxiella brunetti which
is not a virus but a rickettsia, and is an occupational
hazard for abattoir workers in Australia. The infection
is carried in sheep and after processing lamb for market,
some persons get Q fever. It has been well recognized and
well treated in Australia for years.
At
first, when cases did not seem to resolve normally despite
appropriate antibiotic treatment, the government felt they
were “faking it” in order to collect unemployment.
(Sound familiar?) However, two managers developed the “post
Q fever debility syndrome” and they were not eligible
for unemployment benefits. The government then became interested
and began a series of studies with Dr. Marmion. It is now
clear that more than 5% of persons with Q fever who were
treated well at the onset of their infection go on to develop
ME/CFS.
e) Lyme disease
Lyme
disease has its controversial side, and it is not surprising
that it fits in this discussion of ME/CFS. As an acute illness,
Lyme is known for its neurologic and rheumatologic symptoms,
and a percentage of persons who get Lyme disease do not
recover. It is caused by a spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi,
and, unlike viruses, it is an organism that can be cured
with antibiotics. The crucial question that plagues the
subject of chronic Lyme disease is whether the illness is
due to persistence of the organism, or is it a “hit
and run” illness. If it is entirely due to persisting
infection, it should be treatable with high dose antibiotics.
At
present there are anecdotal reports that long term antibiotics
have been successful in the treatment of ME/CFS, but it
should be remembered that a substantial number of persons
with the illness get better by themselves in the first few
years of the illness. That means that if someone is quite
ill at two years of illness and begins either antibiotics
or vitamins or any other treatment, they have nearly an
80% chance of getting better over the next two years regardless
of the treatment. However if someone is still ill at five
years, it is unlikely that they will improve spontaneously.
We will discuss this in greater length in the prognosis
section.
Personally,
I have not had success with long term antibiotics in my
patients.
f) Others
There
are many other infections implicated in starting ME/CFS,
and each of them has its own supporters. In the past, studies
have shown that each of them is not “the cause”,
meaning that there is not a large enough block of one initiating
infection to make a statistical dent if looked at a whole
population.
In
Lyndonville, for instance, in 1985 there was an outbreak,
and I was certain that it was one specific virus or virus-like
organism that set it off. I feel this way because the appearance
of the first few weeks was nearly the same from person to
person. This is different from the patients I see now from
different areas in the country who have had their ME/CFS
initiated in a variety of different ways.
Other
legitimate contenders for ME/CFS cause include Brucella,
Ross River virus, Hepatitis C, mycoplasma, Inoue-Melnick
virus, and Borna virus. I have one patient whose illness
began after documented Histoplasmosis and another after
psittacosis. There is likely a huge range of infectious
agents that have the potential to cause ME/CFS. We need
to establish what these particular infections have in common
which can set off ME/CFS in susceptible persons.

Conclusions
Infection
is likely to be the most common way that ME/CFS begins.
It is likely that for people who are to get the illness,
they have an infection like other members of their family.
However their immune system does not resolve the infection
properly and continues to produce chemicals called cytokines
which cause the person to feel ill even though the initiating
infection may go away. Alternatively, there may be persistence
of the infection in the patient, although at a level that
is difficult to detect. In Chapter II-4 we will examine
this link between infection and cytokines.
My
conclusions on this subject are that both mechanisms occur
simultaneously: both contribute to the persistence of symptoms,
sometimes for the rest of a person’s life. If this
is true, the implications of this are straightforward. First,
it is necessary to know which infection began the illness,
and this means early recognition of ME/CFS. Testing for
specific initiating infections should occur if someone has
a particularly severe first three weeks of illness, or is
still ill at one month after an infection. It is not appropriate
to waste this time by saying that a person not recovering
at three weeks may have had a childhood trauma that has
turned him or her into a whiner.
Secondly,
treatment should be aggressive and directed toward the initiating
infection early in the course of the illness, perhaps beginning
by three weeks into the illness. And thirdly, medications
which can disrupt the cascade of cytokines should be sought,
but this must be done carefully because of potential immunologic
complications.
As
we will discuss in the next chapter, infection is not the
only cause of ME/CFS. But I suspect that there is a common
mechanism past the immune dysregulation that leads to the
persistence of exhaustion and pain that is similar to the
symptoms initiated by an infection. What is frustrating
for any experienced clinician is this: we now know, through
experience, that patients with debilitating fatigue and
exhaustion because of a possible “virus” that
is not really mono is not going to get better. But it is
still accepted medical practice to say that there is really
no problem, everything is fine, and maybe we should get
you to a psychiatrist if things don’t shape up over
the next three weeks. The role of infection initiating what
we are now calling ME/CFS is becoming very clear scientifically.
I can only hope that this information will be communicated
to medical providers in the future.

References
Cairns
V, Godwin J. Post-Lyme borreliosis syndrome: a meta-analysis
of reported symptoms. Int J Epidemiol.2005;34:1340-1345.
Chia
JK. The role of enterovirus in chronic fatigue syndrome.
J Clin Pathol. 2005;58:1126-1132.
Kerr
J, Cunniffe V, Kelleher P, Bernstein R, Bruce I. Successful
intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in 3 cases of parvovirus
B19-associated chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Inf Dis 2003;36:e100-e106
Kerr
JR, Cunniffe VS, Kelleher P, Coats AJ, Mattey DL. Circulating
cytokines and chemokines in acute symptomatic parvovirus
B19 infection: negative association between levels of pro-inflammatory
cytokines and development of B-19 associated arthritis.
J Med Virol 2004; 74 (1):147-155.
Kerr
JR. Pathogenesis of parvovirus B19 infection: host gene
variability, and possible means and effects of virus persistence.
J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2005; 52(7-8):335-339.
Kerr
JR, Barah F, Mattey DL, Laing I, Hopkins SJ, Hutchinson
IV, Tyrrell DAJ. Circulating tumor necrosis factor-a and
interferon-g are detectable during acute and convalescent
parvovirus B19 infection and are associated with prolonged
and chronic fatigue.
White
P, Thomas J, Sullivan R, Buchwald D. The nosology of sub-acute
and chronic fatigue syndromes that follow infectious mononucleosis.
Psychol. Med. 2004;34:499-507.
White
P, Thomas J, Amess J, al. Incidence risk and prognosis of
acute and chronic fatigue syndromes and psychiatric disorders
after glandular fever. Br. J. Psychiatry 1998;173:475-481
