4.7 Article

Oxidative stress levels are raised in chronic fatigue syndrome and are associated with clinical symptoms

Journal

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 584-589

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2005.04.020

Keywords

oxidative stress; chronic fatigue syndrome; free radicals; cardiovascular risk factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aetiology of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is unknown; however, recent evidence suggests excessive free radical (FR) generation may be involved. This study investigated for the first time levels of 8-iso-prostaglandin-F-2 alpha-isoprostanes alongside other plasma markers of oxidative stress in CFS patients and control subjects. Forty-seven patients (18 males, 29 females, mean age 48 [19-63] years) who fulfilled the Centres for Disease Control classification for CFS and 34 healthy volunteers (13 males, 21 females, 46 [19-63] years) were enrolled in the study. The CFS patients were divided into two groups; one group had previously defined cardiovascular (CV) risk factors of obesity and hypertension (group 1) and the second were normotensive and nonobese (group 2). Patients had significantly increased levels of isoprostanes (group 1, P = 0.007; group 2, P = 0.03, unpaired t test compared to controls) and oxidised low-density lipoproteins (group 2, P = 0,02) indicative of a FR attack on lipids. CFS patients also had significantly lower high-density lipoproteins (group 1, P = 0.011; group 2, P = 0.005). CFS symptoms correlated with isoprostane levels, but only in group 2 low CV risk CFS patients (isoprostanes correlated with; total symptom score P = 0.005; joint pain P = 0.002; postexertional malaise P = 0.027, Pearson). This is the first time that raised levels of the gold standard measure of in vivo oxidative stress (isoprostanes) and their association with CFS symptoms have been reported. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available