Persistent fatigue induced by interferon-alpha: A novel, inflammation-based, proxy model of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2018, Pariante et al

fossil said:
Like they seem to be suggesting in this paper?

Depression and anxiety in patients receiving interferon-alpha - The role of illness perceptions.

Hepgul N, et al. J Health Psychol. 2018.

Authors
Hepgul N1, Pariante CM1, Baraldi S1, Borsini A1, Bufalino C1, Russell A1, Agarwal K2, Cleare AJ1, Forton DM3, Henderson M1,2, Mondelli V1, Ranjith G4, Hotopf M1.

From abstract;

"Negative illness perceptions play a predictive role in the development of interferon-alpha-induced psychiatric symptoms."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27458106/

(Note: I haven't read the full paper.)
Click to expand...

Just to add: The paper was first published in 2016:

Article Information
Volume: 23 issue: 11, page(s): 1405-1414
Article first published online: July 24, 2016; Issue published: September 1, 2018
Click to expand...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105316658967
 
Am I just being really cynical here or does anyone else suspect that the hype surrounding this paper has nothing to do with importance of the results and is instead a scrambling attempt by those involved to gain some plausible deniability with regards to their previous disregard for bad research in this field?

I can't help thinking that with mounting pressure about the PACE trial and now the issues with Cochrane the BPSers, MRC, SMC, Kings etc. have concluded:

"Oh crap! This isn't going to go away and looks very bad for us. Oh I know! Let's use our collective resources to plug this paper; it doesn't directly contradict our work on psychological perpetuation but looks at biological triggers for fatigue. We can say: "Yes we supported the PACE trial - but look we also supported this quality piece of biomedical research. See there isn't bias towards psychological CFS research! What are those crazy patients on about?! "

Edit: Spelling mistake​
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
The SMC briefing on this paper has gone on line this morning, though dated last Saturday, have not read it yet.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/the-biology-of-chronic-fatigue/

The title alone seems to go well beyond what one can reasonably conclude from the research.
Click to expand...
Not much to read, this is all there is on their website (as it's meant as a journalist briefing and is available publicly I have quoted the complete text, if the SMC feel that this is unfair use of their text then I'd be happy to edit it down).

Lack of capital letters and poor formatting are all the work of the SMC.
the biology of chronic fatigue


Despite tentative evidence that the immune system might play a role in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) the underlying biology of CFS has remained a mystery. By the time patients are diagnosed it is too late to monitor the immune system at the start of the illness. Researchers from King’s College London have now undertaken the most in-depth biological investigation into the role of the immune system in lasting symptoms of fatigue.

At this SMC briefing issues including the following were discussed.

  • What happens to the immune system during the earliest stages of illness?
  • Whatdifferentiates people who develop chronic fatigue before symptoms develop?
  • Willit be possible to identify those at risk of developing CFS?
  • Willdoctors be able to catch CFS as it starts?
Speakers:

ProfessorCarmine Pariante, Professor ofBiological Psychiatry and NIHR Senior Investigator Award at the Institute ofPsychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, and ConsultantPerinatal Psychiatrist at South London and Maudsley NHS Trust

DrAlice Russell, researcher atInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London
Click to expand...
 
Trish said:
If someone has interferon therapy, or chemotherapy, or some other drug therapy, the therapy stops but they are left with symptoms that fit ME criteria such as CCC, then surely they would have ME too.

The problem in this study seems to be that the patients who had interferon treatment were left with the symptom chronic fatigue after the therapy stops, not with symptoms that fit any ME definition except the discredited Oxford criteria. So they don't have ME.
Click to expand...

Clearly it is all rather semantic.

However, defining a syndrome like ME or CFS (in the sense of the same as ME) is based on the idea that a specific clinical pattern implies some at least partially unknown causal path. Having a virus at the start is part of the accepted syndrome. Having an injection or two of interferon is not - i.e. the subjects do not have 'wild type ME'. And if one allows interferon induced illness then one probably has to include chemotherapy induced fatigue, cancer in ducked fatigue and all the things that the syndrome of wild type ME is intended to exclude.

What is not clear to me is whether or not the subjects in this study do in fact fit with ME in other respects. Do we know they did not have PEM? The Oxford criteria are over inclusive but it might be that all the subjects would have fitted CCC?
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
What is not clear to me is whether or not the subjects in this study do in fact fit with ME in other respects. Do we know they did not have PEM? The Oxford criteria are over inclusive but it might be that all the subjects would have fitted CCC?
Click to expand...

Did anybody ever pose the question this way: Are there people experiencing debilitating persistent fatigue due to a known medical condition who display an illness pattern similar to ME, including having ME-typical PEM (that is more than just increased tiredness)?

The problem with the Pariante study to me appears to be that the investigators were not interested at all in the specifics of ME other than the two non-specific criteria persistent fatigue and no biomedically abnormal findings. In the manner they are applying their findings (eta: hypothetically) to ME, supported by the SMC, they are propagating the Oxford Criteria and the ME/CFS = chronic fatigue = persistent tiredness narrative.

(Edited for clarity.)
 
Last edited:
NelliePledge said:
its not for us to give them the benefit of the doubt that some of the people in their study had PEM or met CCC though is it if there isn’t any evidence for it?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a matter of giving benefit of doubt. As indicated by Adam, the value of the study lies beyond that. Parent's claim that the subjects developed 'CFS' is at best confusing, but if they did have PEM they had PEM and that would be of interest. If Parent really wants to claim they have the same problem as is called CFS or ME then he needs to justify it but as indicated above, I still think it is irrelevant because it is not going to be 'wild type ME' even so.
 
MSEsperanza said:
Did anybody ever pose the question this way: Are there people experiencing debilitating persistent fatigue due to a known medical condition who display an illness pattern similar to ME, including having ME-typical PEM (that is more than just tiredness)?
Click to expand...

I suspect there are because at regular intervals members of this and another forum have discovered that their illness is due to something specific, like a genetic or autoimmune disorder. They seem to have been happy that they had PEM. I would not be at all surprised if interferon induced fatigue included PEM. It would be worth knowing.
 
Given the comment in that book chapter by McDonald and Mann from 1991, which I referred to above, it might reasonably be expected that a PEM like fatigue would be encountered. "Patients...who suffer from this fatigue find that it is exacerbated by physical exercise."

it might be worth looking up the paper they refer to: McDonald EM, Mann A and Thomas HC (1987) Interferons as mediators of psychiatric morbidity. Lancet, ii, 1175-1178
 
I thought the Oxford criteria required 6 months of unexplained fatigue?

If interferon therapy is already known to cause lasting fatigue how is that unexplained?

"IFN-alpha, which is used in the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection, induces a persistent fatigue in some individuals, which does not abate post-treatment, that is, once there is no longer immune activation."

To me it only emphasises the inaccuracy of the Oxford criteria for CFS.

(If they had said they wanted to find out why the drug therapy causes long lasting fatigue that's one thing, to equate it to ME/CFS is quite another).
 
Sly Saint said:
I thought the Oxford criteria required 6 months of unexplained fatigue?

If interferon therapy is already known to cause lasting fatigue how is that unexplained?
Click to expand...
Think there is some confusion here. The paper never claims the patients with persistent fatigue after interferon alpha had cfs, they simply compared them to a sample of cfs patients selected by the Oxford criteria. The comparison showed that the persistent fatigue patients had much less fatigue on the chalder scale than the cfs sample.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I suspect there are because at regular intervals members of this and another forum have discovered that their illness is due to something specific...
Click to expand...
I was meaning if this was investigated systematically.

Jonathan Edwards said:
I would not be at all surprised if interferon induced fatigue included PEM. It would be worth knowing.
Click to expand...
Somebody could ask Pariante to reinvestigate. I am afraid he would have to be convinced of the relevance of PEM/ the CCC to ME first.

Jonathan Edwards said:
They seem to have been happy that they had PEM.
Click to expand...
"Happy" sounds odd in this context to my non-native-speaker's ears.
 
Last edited:
Michiel Tack said:
Think there is some confusion here. The paper never claims the patients with persistent fatigue after interferon alpha had cfs, they simply compared them to a sample of cfs patients selected by the Oxford criteria. The comparison showed that the persistent fatigue patients had much less fatigue on the chalder scale than the cfs sample.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then it proves nothing and it is not the message that is being disseminated.

eta:
Interesting that it is in
Chapter 16. Psychopathology: Biological Basis of Behavior Disorders
https://www.biopsychology.com/news/index.php?descType=always&id=16&type=bpchapter&page=0
 
Michiel Tack said:
Think there is some confusion here.
Click to expand...
I agree. The trouble is, Pariante is adding to that confusion with his careless interchangeable use of CF and CFS in interviews, and the Kings College briefing here muddies the waters further:
New research from King’s College London finds that an exaggerated immune response can trigger long-lasting fatigue, potentially explaining how chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) begins. The study is the most in-depth biological investigation yet into the role of the immune system in lasting symptoms of fatigue.

CFS, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), is a long-term illness which is characterised by extreme tiredness. ...
Click to expand...
 
fivetowns said:
Am I just being really cynical here or does anyone else suspect that the hype surrounding this paper has nothing to do with importance of the results and is instead a scrambling attempt by those involved to gain some plausible deniability with regards to their previous disregard for bad research in this field?
Click to expand...
We'll be lucky if it's just that. The other possibility is that it's the prelude to something very unpleasant.

chrisb said:
Our condition seems to be a correlative of homeopathy. Even after the active ingredient is diluted so as to be indetectable, memory of it continues to have effect.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll quote that next time someone thinks they're helping by telling me to have a "mind like water".
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
What is not clear to me is whether or not the subjects in this study do in fact fit with ME in other respects.
Click to expand...

I assumed the authors intended the readers to make that inference given in the introduction they refer to the suggestion that the persistent fatigue following interferon has associated cognitive problems. Unfortunately they do not follow up on this or even demonstrate they understand the difference between the symptom of chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Because they only look at fatigue and use the Oxford criteria, we have no idea what other symptoms were present in the HepC adverse drug reaction group or whether their 'CFS group' would meet more strenuous ME/CFS criteria.

In all they make it hard to take anything useful or meaningful from their findings in terms of a model for ME/CFS. Also the suggestion of a single event triggering a persistent symptamotologgy seems to imply the resultant condition should be stable or improving. They do not discuss this in relation to their HepC patients, and would presumably have to come up with some form of additional explaination for ongoing deterioration or relapsing remitting forms of ME/CFS.

Why is it that some many researchers associated with the British BPS school of thought feel free to pontificate on ME/CFS on the basis of selected, incomplete or inaccurate information?
 
Last edited:
Just want to throw in that criticism of the study is not about downplaying the severity of interferon alpha induced fatigue.

PWME, their allies and ME interested scientists with high scientific standards apply similarly sharp criticism to any other research as well, in particular when it claims to be research into ME.
 
Ravn said:
How we get from this ho-hum persistent fatigue study to the over-hyped 'we have found the cause of ME' is curious to say the least, or possibly suspect... Here's hoping that the public will come away with the general idea that there's something or other badly wrong with the immune system in ME. That would be a silver lining and better than the 'it's all in the head' line. @JohnTheJack's interview contribution to injecting some sense into the reporting was absolutely brilliant.
Click to expand...

The BPSers have used the days before Christmas to publicise things before. I can't remember details, but I do remember feeling upset and angry.

This research is just another superficial study done by people with no understanding of ME and is just being used as a hook to get a specific message out into the media. It is not being trumpeted because they believe there has been a massive breakthough in ME or even fatigue studies but for a reason we can't see yet. That is the only thing which explains the disconnect between the actual results and the claims. The biopsychosocial group could give Trump pointers on political manoeuvring and have always used underhand tactics which rely on the scientific world being naive and taking things at face value. Pariente may not even be in the know.

We are cynical as a community as this has happened over and over. At the very least it will be used to stop our complaints about the makeup of the NICE committee as Partiente is now firmly in the biophysical group. Anything we say will be dismissed as patient whining.
 
I just want to dissect some of what Carmine Pariante said on the Radio Wales programme yesterday:

...we’ve been able to use a group of people that have a high risk of developing chronic fatigue syndrome, in this case, following an activation of the immune system through a medication that they take for a therapeutic purpose, but in reality is very similar to what happens to many patients at the time at which they have a very strong viral infection.
Click to expand...

As far as I understand it, they were looking at a group who had a high risk of developing chronic (or persisting) fatigue - not CFS per se. These patients had already had a very strong viral infection (HCV), which is why they were being treated with IFN-alfa at all, so to claim that they were looking at what happens early on in the infection is not true. These were patients with a known persistent viral infection who were undergoing therapeutic immune challenge.

And what our research shows is that people who go on to develop chronic fatigue syndrome later on have a hyperactive immune system already even before encountering these immune challenges.
Click to expand...

Not sure this is true. It might show that those who mount a strong immune response to their persistent infection without clearing it are more at risk, but did it show "hyperactivity"?

So it is part of their, if you like, genetical personal make-up.
Click to expand...

Or is it more an indicator of the severity of the infection?

And when they encounter the immune activation, let’s say for example a viral infection, I think as we just discussed, then their immune system will respond even more.
Click to expand...

Is IFN-alfa /ribavirin therapy a good proxy for viral infection though?

And the uniqueness of our study is that we have been able to study people at this early stage of the illness, um, at a time where, you know, as we’ve just heard, symptoms can be confused just as part of the normal infection process and so these people would not normally be involved in research.
Click to expand...

Early stage of the illness? The paper doesn't tell us how long these patients had had chronic HCV - just that they were recruited from outpatient clinics across London.

I'd be interested to know what an HCV immunologist/clinician would say about this study, because it seems to run contrary to what others have found, eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477271/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom