Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful. Consequently, up to 91% of patients in the United States remain undiagnosed, and those diagnosed often receive inappropriate treatment. These problems are of increasing importance because after acute COVID-19, a significant percentage of people remain ill for many months with an illness similar to ME/CFS. In 2015, the US National Academy of Medicine published new evidence-based clinical diagnostic criteria that have been adopted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, the United States and other governments as well as major health care organizations have recently withdrawn graded exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy as the treatment of choice for patients with ME/CFS. Recently, 21 clinicians specializing in ME/CFS convened to discuss best clinical practices for adults affected by ME/CFS. This article summarizes their top recommendations for generalist and specialist health care providers based on recent scientific progress and decades of clinical experience. There are many steps that clinicians can take to improve the health, function, and quality of life of those with ME/CFS, including those in whom ME/CFS develops after COVID-19. Patients with a lingering illness that follows acute COVID-19 who do not fully meet criteria for ME/CFS may also benefit from these approaches.

The concept that disease rooted principally in chronic aberrant constitutive and reactive activation of mast cells (MCs), without the gross MC neoplasia in mastocytosis, first emerged in the 1980s, but only in the last decade has recognition of “mast cell activation syndrome” (MCAS) grown significantly. Two principal proposals for diagnostic criteria have emerged. One, originally published in 2012, is labeled by its authors as a “consensus” (re-termed here as “consensus-1”). Another sizable contingent of investigators and practitioners favor a different approach (originally published in 2011, newly termed here as “consensus-2”), resembling “consensus-1” in some respects but differing in others, leading to substantial differences between these proposals in the numbers of patients qualifying for diagnosis (and thus treatment). Overdiagnosis by “consensus-2” criteria has potential to be problematic, but underdiagnosis by “consensus-1” criteria seems the far larger problem given (1) increasing appreciation that MCAS is prevalent (up to 17% of the general population), and (2) most MCAS patients, regardless of illness duration prior to diagnosis, can eventually identify treatment yielding sustained improvement. We analyze these proposals (and others) and suggest that, until careful research provides more definitive answers, diagnosis by either proposal is valid, reasonable, and helpful.

Objective: This retrospective study examined whether changes in patient pre-and post-treatment symptoms correlated with changes in anti-neuronal autoantibody titers and the neuronal cell stimulation assay in the Cunningham Panel in patients with Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcal Infection (PANDAS), and Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS). Methods: In an analysis of all tests consecutively performed in Moleculera Labs' clinical laboratory from April 22, 2013 to December 31, 2016, we identified 206 patients who were prescribed at least one panel prior to and following treatment, and who met the PANDAS/PANS diagnostic criteria. Patient follow-up was performed to collect symptoms and treatment or medical intervention. Of the 206 patients, 58 met the inclusion criteria of providing informed consent/assent and documented pre-and post-treatment symptoms. Clinician and parentreported symptoms after treatment or medical intervention were categorized as "Improved/Resolved" (n = 34) or "Not-Improved/Worsened" (n = 24). These were analyzed for any association between changes in clinical status and changes in Cunningham panel test results. Clinical assay performance was also evaluated for reproducibility and reliability. Results: Comparison of pre-and post-treatment status revealed that the Cunningham Panel results correlated with changes in patient's neuropsychiatric symptoms. Based upon the change in the number of positive tests, the overall accuracy was 86%, the sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 83% respectively, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) was 93.4%. When evaluated by changes in autoantibody levels, we observed an overall accuracy of 90%, a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 92% and an AUC of 95.7%. Assay reproducibility for the calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.90 10 −6 ) and the ELISA assays demonstrated test-retest reproducibility comparable with other ELISA assays. Conclusion: This study revealed a strong positive association between changes in neuropsychiatric symptoms and changes in the level of anti-neuronal antibodies and antibody-mediated CaMKII human neuronal cell activation. These results suggest there may be clinical utility in monitoring autoantibody levels and stimulatory activity against these five neuronal antigen targets as an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of infection-triggered autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders. Future prospective studies should examine the feasibility of predicting antimicrobial and immunotherapy responses with the Cunningham Panel.

Background This paper explores the relationship between chemical intolerance (CI) and mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS). Worldwide observations provide evidence for a two-stage disease process called toxicant-induced loss of tolerance (TILT) as a mechanism for CI. TILT is initiated by a major exposure event or a series of lower-level exposures. Subsequently, affected individuals report that common chemical inhalants, foods, and drugs (i.e., various xenobiotics) trigger multi-system symptoms. Purpose To determine whether MCAS provides a plausible biological mechanism for CI/TILT. Methods Using the validated Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI), we compared patients diagnosed with MCAS (n = 147) to individuals who reported chemical intolerances (CI/TILT) following various exposures (n = 345) and to healthy controls (n = 76). Using ANOVA, we compared QEESI scores across groups. Clinical scores for the MCAS patient group were used to predict CI status using logistic regression. Results More than half (59%) of the MCAS group met criteria for CI. A logistic regression model illustrates that as the likelihood of patients having MCAS increased, their likelihood of having CI/TILT similarly increased, to a near-perfect correspondence at the high ends of the QEESI and clinical MCAS scores. Symptom and intolerance patterns were nearly identical for the CI and MCAS groups. Discussion We present data suggesting that xenobiotic activation of mast cells may underlie CI/TILT. The strikingly similar symptom and intolerance patterns for MCAS and TILT suggest that xenobiotics disrupt mast cells, leading to either or both of these challenging conditions. Faced with patients suffering from complex illness affecting multiple organ systems and fluctuating inflammatory, allergic, and dystrophic symptoms, clinicians can now ask themselves two questions: (1) Could MCAS be at the root of these problems? (2) Could environmental exposures be driving MC activation and mediator release? Increasing our understanding of the connection between TILT and MCs has the potential to expose a new link between environmental exposures and illness, offering new opportunities for improving individual and public health. Conclusion The close correspondence between QEESI scores and symptom patterns for MCAS and TILT patients supports xenobiotic-driven mast cell activation and mediator release (i.e., MCAS) as a plausible unifying biological mechanism for CI/TILT, with profound implications for medicine, public health, and regulatory toxicology.

No abstract