German study finds xmrv

Advocate

Senior Member
Messages
529
Likes
91
Location
U.S.A.
The higher rate in the transplant group suggests that XMRV - like other viruses - takes advantage of the kind of immunosuppression transplant recipients undergo.
Couldn't it also mean that XMRV was transmitted to them in the transplanted tissue?

Advocate
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Likes
19,642
Thanks Kati (how are you with tax returns!!) :D

Wasn't 6% total global prevalence mentioned on an email somewhere on here?? The numbers are adding up people!!!!! :eek::eek::victory:
Oh dear Bullybeef, I need to get on it !!!
 

gracenote

All shall be well . . .
Messages
1,537
Likes
78
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
Originally Posted by Dr. Yes:
The higher rate in the transplant group suggests that XMRV - like other viruses - takes advantage of the kind of immunosuppression transplant recipients undergo.
Or could it be that XMRV caused the initial problem that then made the transplant necessary? (I'm completely out of my league here, but just wondering. Hi Doc.)
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
It seems that transmission via transplant/transfusion alone could account for the 9.9% infection rate in group 3 (i.e., we cannot conclude that an increased susceptibility to infection by other means is at work here). Assuming 1) donated blood/organs are not disproportionately likely/unlikely to come from XMRV+ people, and 2) receiving an infected organ or blood implies certain infection for the recipient, then the transplant/transfusion recipients should have an infection rate of about 3.2% + 96.8%*3.2% (the baseline infection rate, plus the previously uninfected people have a 3.2% chance of being infected upon receiving a transplant/transfusion) ~ 6.3%. For the sample sizes involved, we definitely cannot say at conventional levels of significance that the observed infection rate in group 3 of 9.9% is different than its expected value of 6.3% given the assumptions above.
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
Or could it be that XMRV caused the initial problem that then made the transplant necessary? (I'm completely out of my league here, but just wondering. Hi Doc.)
Good point, gracenote. In the post above I implicitly made an additional assumption that the those needing a transplant/transfusion are infected at the 3.2% baseline, which might not be the case. If they were infected at a higher rate, then the expected rate of infection for transplant/transfusion recipients would be even higher than 6.3%.
 
K

_Kim_

Guest
@ _Kym_

The question above please in your XMRV survey, number 7., what do we say if our moms had a blood transfusion before we were born?
Do we still say no? (My mom had a transfusion and she's sick too). Thank you.
wb Dys!

Hmmm. We didn't consider that possibility. If it were me, I would answer 'no' to question #7 and then write a note about your mom in the Additional questions/comments text box at the end of the survey.
 

Otis

Señor Mumbler
Messages
1,117
Likes
119
Location
USA
Couldn't it also mean that XMRV was transmitted to them in the transplanted tissue?

Advocate
We traded a couple of posts on it but I'll elaborate what I tried to say in my last. If we assume the prevalence in donors is roughly equal to controls then there must be something more happening with immuno-suppression to get the numbers up to 10% even if some of group 3 got XMRV via transplant.

Dr. Yes, as always good insights. Intriguing stuff ...
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
47
Couldn't it also mean that XMRV was transmitted to them in the transplanted tissue?

Advocate
Hi Advocate :Retro smile:

Assuming that the transplanted tissue is from otherwise healthy donors, the likelihood of XMRV positivity in the grafts is still going to be the same as the control group (3.2%), so I don't think that alone would account for the higher numbers in Group 3.

I think the findings in the XMRV poll are actually more interesting in that respect!

If I can throw my hat in the speculation ring, there is another possible reason why transplant patients might be at higher risk of XMRV infection than others... immunosuppressive treatments for transplant recipients typically cause an activation of certain herpes viruses (most notably CMV), often requiring simultaneous antiviral treatment of these patients. This reminds me of the "two-hit" scenario mentioned by some (including Peterson, I think) for ME/CFS, which includes the idea of a herpes virus and XMRV acting in combination to produce the disease. Perhaps there is a similarity between that scenario and what happens to some transplant patients.

ETA - Hi Gracenote!
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
Otis and Dr. Yes:

I disagree (see posts 124 and 125) -- there is simply not enough information here to reach any conclusion other than there is a 92.2% (1 minus the p-value of 0.078 reported in the paper) chance that the observed difference between the infection rates for group 3 and the control group is not due to sampling variation, but is instead due to either infection via transplant/transfusion or increased succeptibility to XMRV infection due to immunosuppresion, or both. (or yet some other reason!)
 
Messages
76
Likes
1
Rivotril said:
so: if you are exposed to any virus, the chance you really catch it, is some higher when your immune system i surpressed, so this possibly also is the case with XMRV.
this study might in that case explain the 4% - 10% difference.

you just have a bigger chance to get it, when you're exposed to it
With regards to the 10% figure then.......

Is it fair to say that added to a pre-existing chance of having XMRV of 3.7%,

there would be a further 3.7% chance of getting XMRV from the transplanted organ,

PLUS another 3.7% chance of getting XMRV from the blood transfusion which would most likely accompany and organ transplant operation???

Maybe im thinking too simplistically (im often guilty of that :D)
 

bullybeef

Senior Member
Messages
488
Likes
138
Location
North West, England, UK
I know this is old news, but the numbers are scarily similar:
http://www.mefmaction.net/Portals/0/docs/Blood Transfusions and CFS.pdf

In this group, 752 patients fulfilled the CDC criteria for CFS (Fuduka, 1994). Of those CFS patients, 34 (4.5%) have a common factor in their past medical history that immediately preceded the onset of their CFS. These patients had received a blood transfusion a few days to a week prior to developing a flu-like syndrome that later proved to be the acute onset of their CFS.
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
47
.....I can just about read this paper,

Have I worked the following out right, That they were testing people who basically had a weak immune system because they wanted to see if people who had a weaker immune system had picked xmrv up and so they were trying to see if xmrv was a passenger virus in these people.
(and have I got the whole thing wrong!):D
Hi villagelife

No they were just looking for XMRV in respiratory secretions, and a good source of respiratory secretions for a study are stored samples taken from patients with respiratory tract infections (diagnosed or suspected). Only one of the three RTI groups clearly had weak immune systems (the transplant group). They did not establish whether or not XMRV is a passenger virus in these patients, and even if it was that has little relevance to ME/CFS. In the case of ME/CFS, if the WPI's unpublished numbers are correct, I highly doubt that it is an innocent bystander.
 
D

DysautonomiaXMRV

Guest
So when do the CDC move on this news I wonder? June 2010 is meant to be when they announce (presumably) tiny % of XMRV in American blood supply, e.g. 0.1%. Yet now the CDC (still pushing CBT/Stress management) are somewhat 'stuck' as the Germans and Japanese are citing levels far higher than they probably will, 30x higher!!!! We know from the CDC at the CFSAC meeting, that there is 'conflicting' evidence over XMRV in CFS. That cannot bode well for us.

So today, CDC must be rather cross about this german study as if the CDC stick to a tiny amount, it'll look fraudulent to the WPI and other scientists globally. They'll have to decide to go with Mikovits and back the American populace or continue the cover up of neuro immune disease by telling people they have CFS.

3 studies all around 2 - 4%, and the CDC coming in 30x lower. It just won't wash with anyone any longer. :tear:

What about that 5 year CDC plan, at this rate the WPI will have the first drugs out in 5 years and the CDC's behavioural therapy will seem somewhat inadequate to deal with XMRV infected folk.

I want to know, instead of the label CFS, what are the CDC going to do about American's infected with XMRV? Lets say we all put our hands up and say CFS doesn't exist and ME doesn't exist - what about XMRV?

Ignore it? Transplantation organisations wil say no, what about Pregnancy and Midwifery organisations, family planning etc?

The best weapon XMRV has against people who yell 'CFS' back at us is the fact XMRV is way bigger than CFS or ME. That's what the disinformants massively miscalculated on. That the people who change history for us, will (ironically) have nothing to do with CFS ME. :eek:
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
47
@otis and @Dr. Yes:

I disagree (see posts 124 and 125) -- there is simply not enough information here to reach any conclusion other than there is a 92.2% (1 minus the p-value of 0.078 reported in the paper) chance that the observed difference between the infection rates for group 3 and the control group is not due to sampling variation, but is instead due to either infection via transplant/transfusion or increased succeptibility to XMRV infection due to immunosuppresion, or both. (or yet some other reason!)
Actually, I was only answering on the extreme premise, as I thought Advocate was, that the 9.9% was not subject to statistical error, in which case infection by transplant would not be sufficient to explain the higher number. But if one includes statistical error then you are probably right (though I can't be sure you're right because, as my high school algebra teacher once told me, my 'math sucks'. :D)
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
(though I can't be sure you're right because, as my high school algebra teacher once told me, my 'math sucks'. :D)
That's actually a quote from your teacher?!? Harsh! Or is this like when the Oracle tells Neo exactly what he needs to hear to motivate him...?
 

Orla

Senior Member
Messages
708
Likes
1,463
Location
Ireland
We know from the CDC at the CFSAC meeting, that there is 'conflicting' evidence over XMRV in CFS. That cannot bode well for us.
I am purely speculating here, but I wonder if the confounding results related to the patients they were testing? As far as I can remember, as well as testing more "tightly" (i.e. accurately) diagnosed ME/CFS patients, they were also running XMRV tests on patients who just met their awful Reeves/Empirical definition (which could include mostly people without ME/CFS).

It would be very interesting if the results varied depending on the population studied, and might strengthen our case that the Reeves Definition is not picking up classic ME/CFS cases (or are including a lot of people without ME/CFS). However, I am just being hopeful here, and we shall see when we shall see.

There could be other reasons for the confounding results, such as different labs might have better detection rates and so on.

But if the results are somewhat varied, it does imply they found at least some patients had XMRV, so not another zero finding study.

Orla
 

hvs

Senior Member
Messages
292
Likes
1
If it is really that infectuous than thus must imply that most people can resist infection.
Actually, they do not at all claim that it is highly infectious. They say that they cannot conclude that the respiratory tract is a transmission route presently. From their small sample, they do claim there's a slight hint that immunosuppressed folks will prove to have it more often, because the sick people they tested have it at 3 times the normal rate