No abstract

BackgroundIn a recently published paper, Harvey and Wessely put forward a 'biopsychosocial' explanatory model for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), which is proposed to be applicable to (chronic) fatigue even when apparent medical causes are present.MethodsHere, we review the model proposed by Harvey and Wessely, which is the rationale for behaviourally oriented interventions, such as cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET), and compare this model with a biological model, in which inflammatory, immune, oxidative and nitrosative (IO&NS) pathways are key elements.DiscussionAlthough human and animal studies have established that the pathophysiology of ME/CFS includes IO&NS pathways, these abnormalities are not included in the model proposed by Harvey and Wessely. Activation of IO&NS pathways is known to induce fatigue and somatic (F&S) symptoms and can be induced or maintained by viral and bacterial infections, physical and psychosocial stressors, or organic disorders such as (auto)immune disorders. Studies have shown that ME/CFS and major depression are both clinical manifestations of shared IO&NS pathways, and that both disorders can be discriminated by specific symptoms and unshared or differentiating pathways. Interventions with CBT/GET are potentially harmful for many patients with ME/CFS, since the underlying pathophysiological abnormalities may be intensified by physical stressors.ConclusionsIn contrast to Harvey and Wessely's (bio)psychosocial model for ME/CFS a bio(psychosocial) model based upon IO&NS abnormalities is likely more appropriate to this complex disorder. In clinical practice, we suggest physicians should also explore the IO&NS pathophysiology by applying laboratory tests that examine the pathways involved.

No abstract

Background: Depression is an inflammatory disorder while many authors declare myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to be a functional disorder. The aim of the present study is to compare inflammatory and cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses between depression and ME/CFS. Methods: We measured two proinflammatory cytokines (PICs) in plasma, interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and serum neopterin with a radioimmunoassay in controls, ME/CFS and depressive patients. Results: Plasma PICs were significantly higher in ME/CFS than in depression and higher in both patient groups than in controls. Increased PIC levels in depression were attributable to the presence of fatigue and physio-somatic symptoms. Serum neopterin did not differ significantly between depression and ME/CFS but was higher in both patient groups than in controls. The significant positive correlations between neopterin and either IL-1 or TNF-α were significantly greater in depression than in ME/CFS. Conclusions: Since PICs cause depression-like behaviors and fatigue/malaise, we suggest that inflammation may play a role in the pathophysiology of ME/CFS and depression. Increased neopterin also seems to contribute to the pathophysiology of both disorders. This study has detected a shared ‘pathway phenotype’, i.e. disorders in inflammatory and CMI pathways, which underpins both ME/CFS and depression and, therefore, may explain the co-occurrence of both disorders. ME/CFS and depression are discriminated from each other by increased PICs in ME/CFS and differences in the immune cell communication networks.

No abstract