Introduction
Black plague epidemics in Medieval Europe, the Spanish Flu pandemic during the first
world war, and the pandemic of COVID-19 disease are just three devastating examples
of the fragile co-existence between human beings and the microbial world. Remarkably,
the human immune system with its innate and adaptive arms recognizes and clears the
invading pathogens in most cases. However, like a scar after an injury, some people
who had suffered from acute infections remain ill long after the clearance of the
pathogen itself. These individuals develop complex fatigue-related syndromes whose
pathological mechanisms remain poorly understood. A prime example of such syndromes
is the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) characterized by
persistent fatigue and post-exertional malaise among other symptoms (1). Unfortunately,
its diagnosis remains challenging due to the inexistence of objective biomarkers that
could identify cases. However, researchers are gathering around multidisciplinary
networks, such as the US ME/CFS Clinician Coalition and the European Network on ME/CFS,
with the aim of fostering collaboration, standardizing research and clinical practices,
while accelerating biomarker discovery (2–5). Less-known fatigue-related syndromes
have been recently reported after the outbreaks of Ebola virus, Dengue virus, and
Chikungunya virus in the Tropics (6–8). However, it is still unclear whether these
syndromes constitute clinical entities beyond ME/CFS itself.
In this scenario, we invited the research community to contribute with studies on
these complex fatigue-related syndromes. Our primary objective was to take the pulse
of current data and hypotheses about how these syndromes are initiated and maintained
over time. Our second objective was to understand how current insights can lead to
successful treatments for patients. With the WHO notification of the COVID-19 as a
pandemic on March 11, 2020, our third and final objective was to debate for the first
time about ME/CFS as a sequela of post-SARS-CoV-2 infections. The graphical summary
of all the contributions received is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Research Topic overview (left side) linked to post-infectious fatigue syndromes with
myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) as the main representative
(center). Research Topic contribution (right) focused on viral triggers of ME/CFS,
disease-related pathomechanisms, and potential therapies.
Old and New Viral Triggers of ME/CFS
Early on, it was immediately recognized the impact of herpesviruses on the pathology
of ME/CFS (9–11). Follow-up studies made clear that other viruses could also elicit
the disease (12). However, the respective pathological mechanisms remain to be uncovered.
In this regard, O'Neal and Hanson offered a critical review about past research on
enteroviruses as causative agents of ME/CFS. Another interesting review was conducted
by Lidbury who discussed the immune evasion strategies of the Ross River virus, which
is an arbovirus endemic to Australia, Papua New Guinea, and other islands in the South
Pacific. We foresee this review to be useful for understanding post-infection fatigue
syndromes due to other arboviruses, such as the Chikungunya, Dengue, and Zika. In
this regard, it is a priority to study the burden of post-infection fatigue among
Brazilian or Cape Verdean survivors who suffered from recent outbreaks of these arboviruses
(13, 14). Finally, Lee et al. and Domingues et al. provided new research on herpesviruses
in patients from the United Kingdom ME/CFS biobank. The first study is a rare longitudinal
analysis of multiple herpesviruses in patients with ME/CFS; such studies should become
standard given the natural fluctuations in disease dynamics. The second study concerns
a re-analysis of published serological data using a stratification based on infection
and non-infection triggers. The findings of this study clearly show the necessity
of stratifying patients adequately, as suggested by Jason et al. (15).
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new viral trigger of ME/CFS is currently
spreading across the world: SARS-CoV-2. Past experience with the “original” SARS-CoV
pandemic suggested this coronavirus as another trigger of ME/CFS (16). Before any
mainstream discussion about “long-COVID” or “post-acute sequelae SARS-CoV-2 infection”,
Komaroff and Bateman on behalf of the US ME/CFS clinician coalition drafted a sort
of memorandum alerting for the devastating long-term consequences in survivors of
SARS-CoV-2 infections. In turn, Petracek et al. reported probably the first three
ME/CFS cases after 6 months of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Other studies published elsewhere
provide further evidence that some long-COVID patients suffer from ME/CFS (17, 18)
and, as such, there is a window of opportunity to improve the understanding of both
conditions.
New Perspectives on Disease Pathology and Treatment
A key challenge of investigating ME/CFS is that the disease is likely to be multifactorial
and heterogeneous and, therefore, patients might show different pathological pathways
that could explain their symptoms. To resolve this, many theoretical papers about
possible disease mechanisms emerged in the literature over the years (19–23). In this
Research Topic, Stanculescu et al. followed the footsteps of these early theoretical
papers by paralleling the pathological mechanisms suggested for patients in an intensive
care unit (ICU) and patients with ME/CFS. Their research premise is that the same
“vicious circle” between inflammation, oxidative and nitrosative stress, and low thyroid
hormone function is operating in both clinical populations. In a follow-up paper,
Stanculescu et al. made a comprehensive review of available treatments for ICU patients
with the idea of being repurposed to stop that “vicious circle” in patients with ME/CFS.
Given the heterogeneous nature of ME/CFS, it is likely that the suggested parallelism
might only hold true for some but not all the patients. In another theoretical paper,
O'Boyle et al. provided a general discussion about treatment and case management using
a previously proposed framework for the natural progression of the disease (24). These
authors suggested that pre-disease and early disease call for rehabilitation strategies
that could avoid long-term co-morbidity while the management of the established disease
should be more holistic and tailored to the specific needs of each patient. The basic
question is whether clinicians are able to estimate accurately at which disease stage
a patient is.
As a follow-up from early clinical trials in Norwegian patients with ME/CFS (25, 26),
Sørland et al. evaluated endothelial function in patients with ME/CFS at baseline
and after a therapeutic intervention with cyclophosphamide, an immunosuppressive drug
used in cancer. This evaluation was motivated by the growing evidence of vascular
abnormalities in ME/CFS (27, 28). The authors also found endothelial dysfunction at
baseline, which persisted after treatment irrespective of the clinical response of
the patients. Interestingly, the authors also reported a significant correlation between
high symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) levels and low flow-mediated dilation values.
Thus, given that SDMA has been described to reduce the production of nitric oxide
(NO) in endothelial cells (29), this study raises a new perspective to address endothelial
dysfunction in ME/CFS by combining clinical and metabolic parameters. Endothelial
dysfunction and inadequate regulation of blood flow resulting in hypoperfusion of
the brain and muscles are considered as key pathological mechanisms in ME/CFS as further
outlined in two recent papers (21, 30). There is increasing evidence that autoantibodies
directed against vasoregulatory receptors contribute to the vascular dysregulation
in ME/CFS (21, 30). These findings open perspectives for therapy. For example, one
can target autoreactive B cells or autoantibodies, and preliminary studies provide
evidence for clinical efficacy [reviewed in ref. (30)]. The use of drugs that help
regulating vascular function is another possibility to treat patients with ME/CFS.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this Research Topic collects further pieces of evidence about how various
viruses including SARS-CoV-2 can trigger ME/CFS. The neglect of research in ME/CFS
during the last decades has left patients, carers, and clinicians alike adrift without
a licensed drug to use in the disease. On the one hand, the COVID-19 pandemic will
result in an unprecedented explosion of ME/CFS cases. At the same time, this pandemic
is the perfect storm that can motivate different stakeholders, including funders and
clinicians, to take the necessary steps to accelerate research on ME/CFS and other
post-infectious syndromes. If taken, these steps will bring hope to all those outstanding
patients who have been homebound or even bedridden for many years but neglected by
national health authorities.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to this editorial and approved the final version.
Funding
FW received funding from ME Research UK (SCIO charity number SC036942). EL received
funding from the National Institutes of Health (ref. NIH 2R01AI103629), and the ME
Association (UKMEB–ME Association, Grant PF8947_ME Association). CS received funding
from the Weidenhammer Zoebele Foundation, Germany. NS received funding from Fundação
para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (ref. UIDB/00006/2020), and the Polish National
Agency for Academic Exchange, Poland (ref. PPN/ULM/2020/1/00069/U/00001).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the
editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim
that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.