ShareThis Page
Health

Study: Antibiotics no help against Gulf War illness

| Tuesday, July 20, 2004

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A yearlong regimen of powerful antibiotics did nothing to improve the chronic health problems reported by Gulf War veterans, a study by the Department of Veterans Affairs has found.

The findings unequivocally close the book on speculation that a bacterial infection causes the syndrome commonly known as Gulf War illness, said the authors of the report in today's edition of Annals of Internal Medicine.

"I think an infectious (cause) is off the table at this point," said Joseph F. Collins, a VA Maryland Healthcare System researcher and one of the study's authors. "It's disappointing, but the results are definitive: This is not the smoking gun."

Researchers have verified that veterans of the Persian Gulf war in 1990 and 1991 are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic and symptoms including memory and thinking problems, debilitating fatigue, severe muscle and joint pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia, headaches and rashes.

However, a source has proven elusive.

Theories on possible causes have included bacterial infection, chemical or biological weapons, pollutants from burning oil fields, vaccinations for anthrax and other potential biological weapons, depleted uranium munitions, and stress-related psychological factors.

The VA researchers studied 491 Gulf War veterans who complained of the syndrome's symptoms and who were found to have a bacterium called mycoplasma in their bloodstream that was suspected to be the culprit. The veterans were randomly assigned to take either the broad-spectrum antibiotic doxycycline or a placebo daily for a year; neither the patients nor their doctors knew who was getting what.

"We found that 18 percent of vets getting doxycycline improved, and 17 percent getting a placebo improved," Collins said.

The antibiotic group also experienced nausea and sun sensitivity more often than the placebo group. Coupled with the potential public health risks of long-term antibiotic use, the drugs at best did nothing and at worst may have caused harm, the study concluded.

An editorial accompanying the study praised the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which have spent more than $200 million on hundreds of studies researching Gulf War illness, for refusing to accept the continued and dangerous overprescription of antibiotics to tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

"U.S. veterans were beginning long-term, potentially hazardous antibiotic treatment to deal with the alleged infection," said Dr. Simon Wessely of King's College in London. "It would have been easy for professionals to ignore this and simply express skepticism and disapproval" but the government instead made the right decision by conducting the large trial that should halt such practices, he said.

The positive news is that the study narrows the scope of where scientists should focus their money and effort, said Stephen L. Robinson, executive director of The National Gulf War Resource Center, based in Silver Spring, Md.

"This confirms information that has already been out there," he said. "We know that we can stop looking at this and we can focus research on other areas that might prove fruitful."

Collins said that it will be a long time, if ever, before the cause of Gulf War illness is identified.

"It may be that there were multiple exposures at low doses to multiple toxins that made people sick ... and that's a very difficult thing to tease out," Collins said.

"The veterans are frustrated and they want answers, they want to know why they have this. But I'm not optimistic that medical research will ever to be able to reach a point in establishing a cause."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me