virology blog

About viruses and viral disease

chronic fatigue syndrome

Why do Some People Develop Long COVID?

by

by Gertrud U. Rey

Long COVID is a chronic manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it is most commonly characterized by lingering fatigue, brain fog, memory impairment, and confusion. Although it is unclear how the viral infection leads to long COVID, experts speculate that one or more of the following factors may contribute: an inability to successfully clear virus, a reactivation of latent viruses, a disturbance of the gut microbiome, continuing inflammation, and/or autoimmunity.

Yale University researcher Akiko Iwasaki and colleagues recently explored some of these hypotheses in an attempt to identify diagnostic biomarkers associated with long COVID. The study involved four groups of participants, with the experimental group consisting of both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with long COVID. The other three groups served as three separate types of controls:

  1. healthy, vaccinated, uninfected individuals;
  2. healthy, unvaccinated, previously infected individuals without long COVID; and
  3. healthy, vaccinated, previously infected individuals without long COVID.

The investigators obtained blood samples from all participants and analyzed the samples for the presence of specific immune cells. They found that compared to control groups, long COVID participants had lower levels of conventional dendritic cells and memory T helper cells. Conventional dendritic cells typically activate cytotoxic T cells, which in turn kill infected cells. Memory T helper cells are a central element of the adaptive immune response, where they help orchestrate downstream immune functions upon recognition of antigen. Long COVID participants also had increased numbers of “exhausted” T cells, which are no longer functional or capable of eliminating virus. These results suggested that people with long COVID may have insufficient numbers of immune cells able to inactivate virus, thus allowing viruses to linger and continue replicating and circulating. Whether this assumption is true, and whether long COVID participants do indeed have persistently circulating virus, is subject to ongoing analysis.

Previous studies have shown that patients with severe COVID-19 can have increased levels of functional antibodies directed against self antigens that circulate outside of cells (i.e., extracellular autoantibodies), suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause autoimmune disorders. To identify a possible connection between autoimmunity and long COVID, the authors screened the collected blood samples for autoantibodies using a technique called Rapid Extracellular Antigen Profiling (REAP). Among other applications, REAP allows one to assess antibody reactivity against a panel of extracellular human proteins known to contribute to well-studied autoimmune disorders. Interestingly, long COVID participants did not have increased levels of autoantibodies compared to control groups, suggesting that the autoantibodies detected in patients with severe COVID-19 may only be present during the acute phase of disease. However, REAP only assesses antibodies directed to extracellular self proteins and does not provide any information regarding intracellular or non-protein-specific autoantibodies. Therefore, one cannot rule out a role for autoimmunity in long COVID.  

The authors also used REAP to detect antibodies against various viruses. They found that long COVID participants had antibodies against several other viruses in addition to SARS-CoV-2, including Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a herpesvirus that is well known for causing infectious mononucleosis (i.e., “mono”), a condition that is often compared to encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID. However, because most adults have antibodies against EBV and there was no significant difference in the percentage of EBV antibody-positive participants between experimental and control groups, it is unlikely that a positive EBV antibody status contributes to the risk of developing long COVID.

The most interesting observation in this study was that compared to control groups, long COVID participants had about 50% lower levels of the steroid hormone cortisol. Because cortisol is a potent anti-inflammatory agent, it is feasible that a shortage of cortisol would lead to persistent inflammation and the long-term tissue damage associated with inflammation. In line with this reasoning, cortisol levels were highest in healthy, vaccinated, uninfected controls (group 1 controls); lower in healthy, unvaccinated, previously infected individuals without persistent symptoms (group 2 controls); and lowest in long COVID participants. Using machine learning methods, the authors determined that cortisol deficiency was the single most significant predictor of a long COVID diagnosis. Low cortisol has also been implicated in ME/CFS, and treatment with hydrocortisone can provide some relief from symptoms. 

The authors are careful to note that the small sample size of 215 participants is a considerable limitation of this study. Nevertheless, the results offer some valuable insight that may apply to other chronic conditions. In contrast to public perception, long-term symptoms following an acute viral infection are not unique to COVID-19. Unexplained chronic syndromes involving similar symptoms to long COVID have also been reported after dengue virus, poliovirus, SARS-CoV, Chikungunya virus, West Nile virus, Ross River virus, Coxsackie virus, and influenza virus infections. Because these syndromes are associated with high public health and economic burdens, more work needs to be done to clarify their underlying mechanisms.  

ME/CFS is not a psychosomatic illness

by

W. Ian Lipkin, Director of the Center for Infection and Immunity and the Center for Solutions for ME/CFS at Columbia University, has written the following letter several days before the Fourth Annual Conference on Psychosomatics at Columbia University this weekend. The original letter can be found at this link.

18 October 2018

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

The Center for Infection and Immunity (CII) has been committed to ME/CFS research since 2010. We began this research with generous support from the Chronic Fatigue Initiative of the Hutchins Family Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Microbe Discovery Project.

In 2017, the CII was selected to host one of three NIH centers funded for collaborative research into the biology of this disease. The Center for Solutions for ME/CFS (CfS for ME/CFS) includes representatives from #MEAction and Solve ME/CFS as well as clinical and basic scientists drawn from leading academic institutions and clinical sites across the United States.

Our studies of blood, cerebrospinal fluid, saliva and feces, using state-of-the-art methods that include microbial gene sequencing, metabolomics, proteomics, and immunological profiling, confirm that patients with ME/CFS have biological abnormalities that cannot be characterized as psychosomatic.

Committees convened by the National Academies of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also concluded that ME/CFS is not a psychosomatic disorder.

We are committed to actively investigating the causes of immunological and metabolic abnormalities in ME/CFS. Our hope is that this work will enable insights that lead to treatments.

Sincerely,

W. Ian Lipkin, MD
Director, Center for Infection & Immunity
Director, Center or Solutions for ME/CFS

 

TWiV Special: David Tuller is PACEman

by

David Tuller returns to provide an update of his investigative work to expose the methodological and ethical problems with the PACE trial for ME/CFS.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV Special (42 MB .mp3, 69 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email

Become a patron of TWiV!

David Tuller’s Fundraiser

by

If you appreciate the articles written here by David Tuller on ME/CFS, please consider supporting him financially at Crowdrise.

David is an investigative reporter with a doctorate in public health from the University of California, Berkeley. Since the fall of 2015, David has waged a determined effort to expose the methodological and ethical problems with the PACE trial for ME/CFS. He started this effort because he came to understand that the PACE treatments, graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavior therapy, were not just useless but could actually cause serious harm. Although patients had spent years documenting the trial’s unacceptable flaws, the larger scientific world had dismissed and ridiculed their legitimate concerns. Up until this point, David was able to pursue his investigation as a public service project because of his academic job at Berkeley. But now he needs your help, and your tax-deductible contributions, to continue the effort and try to bring it to its desired conclusion — correction of the scientific record.

Debunking PACE

In October 2015, Virology Blog posted David’s 15,000-word investigation of the PACE trial, the largest-ever study of treatments for the ME/CFS. The findings were published in prestigious journals like The Lancet, Psychological Medicine, PLoS One and others. His investigation and multiple follow-ups revealed how the PACE researchers violated major scientific and ethical principles. Because of these multiple flaws, the trial’s reported findings—that graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavior therapy are effective and can lead to recovery—cannot be taken seriously.

David’s continuing investigation has had a major impact in the debate around PACE and the CBT/GET ideological movement. Here is some of what has happened:

*His work has received coverage in many mainstream and other publications, including The Guardian, Slate, Science, The Wall Street Journal, StatNews, and NPR.  In March, The New York Times published an opinion piece about the issue that he co-wrote with Julie Rehmeyer. (Please also support Julie’s terrific new book, Through the Shadowlands, about her own struggle with ME/CFS.)

*Based on his investigation, Virology Blog published open letters to The Lancet and Psychological Medicine, demanding that journal editors address the serious problems of the published papers. Dozens of scientists and other experts signed these open letters, which received widespread attention..

*Last summer, a British court cited the open letter to The Lancet as evidence that an “impressive roster” of experts, not just irrational patients, had serious concerns about the PACE trial. The court ordered the release of the raw trial data, which has proven what patients have known all along and what David documented on Virology Blog–that the published findings are misleading and unreliable.

*In the U.S., advocates have used David’s work to pressure federal agencies to review their recommendations for GET and CBT. Based on their appeal, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research reassessed the literature and significantly downgraded the evidence for CBT and GET.

*David’s efforts seem to have rattled the PACE investigators and their colleagues. At least, they have slipped up when they try to defend themselves and their methodological decisions. Most recently, Dr. Esther Crawley accused David in a public lecture of writing “libelous blogs.” With this false accusation, she not only created a public relations nightmare for herself and her associates but has provided David with a wealth of blogging material.

David has pursued this investigation because of his deep concern for patients and his dismay at the poor quality of the study. He has been able to devote a lot of time to this rewarding project because of the security of his half-time academic position at Berkeley. Unfortunately, his current Berkekely position is ending on June 30th, after nine years. The University of California is in poor financial shape, and grant money is scarce this year.

Current Ask

That’s why David is seeking your tax-deductible contributions for another year of investigating and blogging about the PACE trial and ME/CFS on Virology Blog. He will also continue to write articles for other publications, when possible. There is much, much more investigating, blogging and hammering away to do–about conflicts of interest, about the FINE “sister” trial, about Cochrane’s misleading systemtatic reviews, the false PLoS One claim that the treatments are “cost-effective,” etc, etc.

David wants to be clear that he will continue this effort no matter what he receives through this five-week crowdfunding campaign, which ends June 30th. The question is how much time he will be able to devote to it.

Where the Money Goes

The money raised will be sent to the Center for Scientific Integrity, a non-profit which publishes the terrific site Retraction Watch and has agreed to serve as fiscal sponsor for this campaign. (That agreement does not mean the Center for Scientific Integrity necessarily endorses or agrees with any output of this project, which is editorially independent.) The Center will transfer 100% of the net funds — after credit card fees and Crowdrise fees — to the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley, which will create a position focused on investigating the PACE trial and others issues related to ME/CFS.

Goal

David’s goal is ambitious: $60,000, the approximate value of his current half-time salary/benefits package at Berkeley. That will allow him to continue to spend the same amount of time he has been spending on investigating, writing, helping organize open letters, and other activities related to PACE and ME/CFS.

David understands that many patients have few resources to spare. But any donation, no matter how small, will help bolster what has turned into an epic struggle to correct the scientific record. (Crowdrise charges a modest fee and provides donors with the option of having that fee added to the donation or taken from the donation.)

If anyone would prefer to support his efforts by donating off-line directly to the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley, please e-mail David for further information: davetuller@berkeley.edu

TWiV Special: Trial by Error, Continued

by

David Tuller returns to discuss the continuing saga of the UK’s PACE trial for chronic fatigue syndrome, including the accusation that he is engaging in libelous blogging.

You can find this TWiV Special at microbe.tv/twiv, or listen below.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV Special (31 MB .mp3, 50 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunes, RSS, email

Become a patron of TWiV!

Trial By Error, Continued: ME Research UK Drops Out of CMRC

by

By David Tuller, DrPH

I have spent two weeks hammering the CFS/ME Research Collaborative about “Renal-gate”—that is, vice-chair Esther Crawley’s recent lecture at a conference of kidney disease experts, in which she falsely accused me of writing “libellous blogs.” The CMRC’s chair, Stephen Holgate, recently assured me that Dr. Crawley had the “full support” of the executive board—a statement I dutifully conveyed to Virology Blog readers.

To be clear, I don’t know what Dr. Crawley actually said in the lecture, or if she mentioned my name. The slide live-tweeted from her talk, which featured the phrase “libelous blogs” near a screen-shot of one of my Virology Blog posts, speaks for itself. (Esther, if I’ve misunderstood and you meant to highlight my post instead as an example of an accurate, non-libelous blog, let me know ASAP.)

Despite the claim that Dr. Crawley enjoyed “full support” from the board, one of the CMRC’s charity members, ME Research UK, announced a few days later that it was withdrawing from the collaborative, “with immediate effect.” ME Research UK’s announcement did not mention Dr. Crawley, but the meaning was clear given the timing and abruptness of the move. So it appeared that the “full support” of the board for Dr. Crawley was likely less than “full” even as Dr. Holgate made the claim.

I am now trying to ascertain what prompted Dr. Holgate to issue such a statement. I had assumed he canvassed every single member of the executive board to gauge whether there was in fact “full support” for Dr. Crawley. Perhaps he did—and perhaps ME Research UK affirmed support for Dr. Crawley yet decided to leave days later for unrelated reasons. But that just seems unlikely.

On the Phoenix Rising forum, Renal-gate has generated a huge amount of interest. The Renal-gate thread has received more than 31,000 views. One commenter suggested that Dr. Holgate was urged to make the statement by the Science Media Centre’s Edward Sykes, an observer on the CMRC executive board. I have no idea if this is true. I have written to both Dr. Holgate and Dr. Sykes to find out how this statement of “full support” arose. I have asked if in fact every member of the CMRC board was canvassed before Dr, Holgate spoke on their behalf. I don’t expect a response, but will provide an update if I hear from Dr. Holgate or Dr. Sykes or anyone who can shed light on what happened.

**********

In other news, Action for ME also issued a statement last week. The statement came out of a board meeting that took place in April—that is, before these most recent events. So no one should expect it to have addressed the public relations nightmare that Dr. Crawley has since presented to all those within her circle, including Action for ME.

(I want to stress that conscientious organizations really do need to take time in responding to challenges. It is much easier for me to immediately blog and shoot darts than it is for those who run big groups to consult each other and address difficult issues in a responsible way.)

On the positive side, the Action for ME statement noted the ongoing controversy surrounding the PACE methodology and trial conduct, and stressed that the questions and concerns need to be addressed “as a matter of urgency.” The statement highlighted the recent reanalysis of the reported recovery findings from the 2013 Psychological Medicine paper, quoting the new study’s conclusion that “the claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data.”

The statement also urged NICE, which is re-visiting the issue of clinical guidelines for ME/CFS, to “take full account of emerging biomedical research, the views and experiences of people with ME, and clearly reflect nuances around findings and re-analysis related to the PACE trial.” And it included a strong endorsement of the need for sharing of research data. These are important messages that deserve to be widely disseminated.

But the statement falls short in rejecting the call to sign onto an open letter to Psychological Medicine, which was posted on Virology Blog in March. The open letter requested retraction of the reported recovery findings and was signed by more than 140 scientists, academics and other experts, as well as ME/CFS organizations. The open letter’s retraction request was based on the reanalysis of the recovery data, which documented how the PACE investigators weakened their recovery criteria in ways that jacked up their reported results. Although Action for ME was not informed of the open letter before it was originally posted, it was asked to add its name afterward. The organization declined.

In last week’s statement, Action for ME explained that decision by noting that Psychological Medicine had already refused the retraction request. “Therefore signing now will have no impact,” the statement noted. This is fallacious reasoning. I doubt many of us who signed the open letter believed it would magically result in retraction—certainly I had no such delusion. The decision-makers at journals like Psychological Medicine and The Lancet have long shown themselves to be impervious to arguments based on logic, common sense and scientific integrity.

From my perspective, the function of the open letter was to demonstrate to the journal editors, the PACE authors and the UK medical establishment that the larger scientific world rejects the kind of upside-down evidence cited by members of the CBT/GET ideological brigade. Action for ME’s argument that it “will have no impact” at this point to support the call for retraction is just silly. The opposite is true. An endorsement of the open letter by Action for ME would be viewed as a turning point in the debate, and I assume the organization’s trustees understand that.

I hope Action for ME will rethink this decision. I also believe the organization, given its close association with Dr. Crawley and her work, should specifically address the concerns raised by her lecture, although that seems unlikely to happen. In fact, having been pressed by patients to take a stand on the issue, the organization has already stated the following: “Action for M.E. had no input into this presentation and none of our team were present at the talk, so we cannot comment on its content.”

Unfortunately for those who have allied themselves with Dr. Crawley, however, she has been caught leveraging her prestige and her public platform at a professional gathering to portray those seeking the truth about questionable research as “vexatious” and “anti-science.” She has been caught slandering me personally, along with my friend and colleague, Dr. Racaniello. I doubt she expected her slides to go viral. But they did.

Dr. Crawley has created a real mess for herself and for everyone around her, and she refuses to clean it up. Someone really needs to stage an intervention.