Primary Chronic Trigger (PCT) for US Military Deployments

Mitigating Infection-Associated Chronic Conditions (IACCs) through monitoring and optimization

Executive Summary

US military veterans deployed internationally are at heightened risk for developing infection-associated chronic conditions (IACCs), including Gulf War Illness (GWI), Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS), and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos (hEDS) overlaps. These often stem from Primary Chronic Triggers (PCTs) such as acute infections, environmental exposures (burn pits, PM₂.₅, VOCs, dampness/mold), and physiologic jolts (blast, surgery, sleep disruption), which push vulnerable systems into non-return to baseline (NRB) states (Hickie 2006; Raj 2020; Afrin 2020; Tomas 2017).

This paper adapts the PCT framework for the US military with two layers: Layer-1 detection via a six-domain PCT Index (PCTi) — Temporal ignition (T), Delayed reactivity 24–72 h (DR), Early 14-day window (E14), timed Biomarker corroboration (BIO), Objective exposome context (Xobj), and Recovery conditions (RC) — and Layer-2 burden modulation via Viral burden/reactivation (V), Environmental toxic load + Climate volatility (ENV/CLIM), and Recovery suppression (RS). The vocabulary is harmonized with IACC’s five-branch biology (autonomic, mast-cell, mitochondrial, autoimmune, connective-tissue).

Recommendations include (i) tour-length and task adjustments for at-risk personnel, (ii) real-time PCTi monitoring during and after deployments, and new (iii) boot camp and pre-deployment baseline-optimization to improve sleep, air, and nutrition and to surface/treat undiagnosed conditions before exposure. This pre-exposure focus matters because many recruits originate from US communities with higher particulate burdens and environmental volatility, increasing physiological load before they ever deploy (Tessum 2021).

PACT Act execution underscores the scale: 6,399,970 toxic exposure screenings completed to date (08/10/2022–08/06/2025) and 1,584,762 Veterans/survivors with approved PACT-related claims (through 08/09/2025), with 2,850,347 PACT-related claims submitted and 2,619,289 completed over the same window. Key insight: Triggers differ by theater and home-station exposures, but downstream biology converges. PCT-aware monitoring and pre-exposure optimization can reduce incidence and chronicity while protecting readiness.

1. Background & Rationale

Why deployments create PCT windows. International deployments compress infectious, environmental, and physiologic stressors into tight timeframes. That compression increases the likelihood of a Primary Chronic Trigger (PCT) — a discrete ignition event after which a vulnerable service member does not return to prior baseline (NRB). Typical deployment PCTs include acute infections and post-infective immune shifts (e.g., reactivation of EBV/HHV-6), sustained particulate and solvent exposures (PM₂.₅ from combustion sources, VOCs, persistent damp/mold), and trauma-linked sleep disruption; these are followed by convergent downstream biology across immune, autonomic, mitochondrial, mast-cell, and connective-tissue branches (Hickie 2006; Brewer 2013; Baxter 2021; Su 2022; Peluso 2023; Raj 2020; Theoharides 2019; Grubb 2022).

Convergence matters for policy and prevention. Although triggers differ by theater, the downstream physiology converges: immune dysregulation with exhaustion-skewed signatures, orthostatic/autonomic instability, mitochondrial hypometabolism and post-exertional malaise (PEM)-style delayed reactivity, mast-cell mediator sensitivity, and connective-tissue/ECM fragility. This convergence is why a single PCT-aware monitoring playbook can address diverse theaters and MOSs while remaining scientifically coherent (Hickie 2006; Raj 2020; Castro-Marrero 2016; Tomas 2017; Theoharides 2019).

Baseline vulnerability isn’t evenly distributed. Many recruits originate from U.S. regions with higher ENV/CLIM volatility (smoke events, heat waves, damp housing) and chronic pollution burdens that elevate physiologic load before enlistment; targeted recruiting can overlap with these geographies. That pre-priming increases the probability that a deployment-period exposure or infection flips the system into NRB (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b). Conversely, improving baseline — treating undiagnosed conditions (iron deficiency, thyroid disease, sleep apnea), cleaning indoor air in billets/training spaces, and nutrition upgrades — reduces ignition probability and lowers chronic severity if a PCT occurs (CDC 2024a; CDC 2024b; Brewer 2013).

Readiness and budget drivers. PACT Act implementation has expanded exposure-related enrollment and adjudication workloads. Preventing ignition or down-staging severity directly reduces long-tail medical and Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF) outlays and improves mission readiness; these are active budget lines in VA’s current submissions and performance dashboards. Current dashboard metrics (above) demonstrate the sustained scale of claims and screenings under the Act. 

2. PCT Framework for Deployments

Two layers, one playbook. The PCT framework separates ignition detection from chronic burden scaling so commanders and clinicians can act early without conflating trigger evidence with downstream biology.

Layer-1: PCT detection with six domains

Score near the suspected event using a lightweight rubric deployable in aid stations or unit medical assets:

• T — Temporal ignition (0–3): Discrete event within a plausible biologic window preceding NRB (Hickie 2006).

• DR — Delayed reactivity 24–72 h (0–3): PEM-style or autonomic flares after routine provocation (e.g., a standard duty day) with prompts at 0/24/48/72 h (Rowe 2014; Raj 2020; Castro-Marrero 2016).

• E14 — Early 14-day window (0–3): New multisystem pattern or function drop in the first two weeks (Montoya 2018).

• BIO — Timed biomarker corroboration (0–3): Time-aligned virology (e.g., EBV EA-D/HHV-6), infection testing, or exposure metrics (moisture/VOC inspection, documented PM spikes) (Su 2022; Peluso 2023; Brewer 2013).

• Xobj — Objective exposome context (0–2): AQI/PM₂.₅, heat indices, damp housing indicators, or solvent logs tied to the duty window (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

• RC — Recovery conditions (0–2): Sleep debt, shift work, lack of leave/recovery time (CDC 2024b).

Normalize to a simple 0–10 index for decision clarity (“Definite / Probable / Possible / Indeterminate”), then assign PCT class (Infectious, Environmental, Surgical/Trauma, Toxicant-mix, Unknown). This preserves auditability and emphasizes time-proximal evidence (Hickie 2006; Rowe 2014).

Layer-2: Burden modulators for forecasting and targeting

Once ignition is likely, scale expected chronic burden with three macro variables:

• V — Viral burden/reactivation (0–1): Case waves, reinfection rates, EBV/HHV-6 signals; higher V raises delayed reactivity and the chance of prolonged symptoms (Su 2022; Peluso 2023).

• ENV/CLIM — Environmental toxic load + climate volatility (0–1): PM₂.₅, smoke/heat days, dampness/flood recovery, VOC indices; higher values increase flare frequency/severity (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

• RS — Recovery suppression (0–1): Sleep disruption, shift intensity, limited leave, caregiving burdens; higher RS lengthens chronicity (CDC 2024b).

These modulators drive resource targeting (who needs closer follow-up), scheduling (shift away from exposure spikes), and budget forecasting (where medical/TEF offsets will accrue) without substituting for diagnosis or treatment.

Field-ready capture.

• Provocation diary: 0/24/48/72 h prompts after a routine duty day capture DR with minimal burden (Rowe 2014).

• Optional HRV snapshots: morning/evening or orthostatic to add autonomic context (Raj 2020).

• Environmental feed: unit-level AQI/heat dashboards logged next to schedules (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

• Timed biomarker windows: reserve for indicated cases (e.g., post-febrile illness) to maximize yield (Su 2022; Peluso 2023; Brewer 2013).

This design lowers false positives (you need timing + pattern) and avoids false negatives by sampling the delayed window where IACC physiology expresses (Rowe 2014; Castro-Marrero 2016).

3. The Standard Deployment System: Where Risk Accumulates

Length and continuity. Tours of 6–12 months with fixed high-exposure assignments create long, uninterrupted exposure windows. That continuity compounds ENV/CLIM (e.g., sustained PM₂.₅ or heat) and raises RS via sleep debt and shift work — both increase the likelihood that a moderate infection or plume becomes an ignition rather than a transient hit (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

Duty scheduling decoupled from exposure intelligence. Environmental data (AQI, heat indices, solvent operations, moisture in billets) often sit in separate channels from line scheduling. When rosters aren’t adjusted to avoid particulate and heat spikes, units inadvertently stack risk, especially for personnel with lower ignition thresholds (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

Biology of “stacking.” Recurrent mild infections, solvent/particulate peaks, and sleep restriction can stack in a four- to eight-week window to produce the same net load as a single severe event. In susceptible individuals, this stack is often what pushes the system into NRB, after which routine inputs produce delayed flares (PEM-like or autonomic) (Hickie 2006; Raj 2020; Castro-Marrero 2016; Tomas 2017).

Gaps at three points in the pipeline.

• Pre-deployment: Limited screening for autonomic fragility, EBV risk windows, damp/air quality in training billets, or correctable conditions (iron deficiency, sleep apnea). Missed chances to raise baseline (CDC 2024a; Brewer 2013; Raj 2020).

• In-theater: Symptom capture is typically same-day; few systems query the 24–72 h delayed window. Environmental feeds are rarely bound to shift design (Rowe 2014; Baxter 2021).

• Post-deployment: Follow-up may not align with the first-year high-yield window for remission and down-staging; PACT Act infrastructure is improving visibility, but feedback loops from claims/dashboards to prevention and scheduling remain immature (VA PACT Dashboard).

Figure S1. “Stacking” in a 4–8 week window (ASCII timeline) Cumulative physiologic load (infection + exposure spikes + sleep debt) crosses an ignition threshold and tips a vulnerable service member into NRB. The same total load can accrue via one big hit or several smaller hits closely spaced.

Load Index

^

|                           ▲ NRB threshold

|                ████       │

|       ████  ████  ███     │

|   ███ ████ ██  ███  ██    │

|___█___█_█__██___█___██____│__________________> time (weeks)

     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Legend (per week):

  █ = weekly cumulative load segment

  I• = acute infection or febrile illness (BIO window strong) (Su 2022; Peluso 2023)

  E▲ = ENV/CLIM spike (PM₂.₅, heat, VOCs, damp billets) (Baxter 2021)

  S✚ = recovery suppression (sleep loss/shift) (FM 7-22; CDC 2024b)

Example week marks:

  Wk 1: I• (URI); Wk 2: E▲ (smoke); Wk 3–4: S✚ (night ops); Wk 5: E▲ (heat);

  Wk 6: I• (GI); → threshold crossed → NRB (PEM/autonomic DR at 24–72 h) (Rowe 2014; Raj 2020)

Rule-of-thumb triggers for action (operational heuristic): • ≥2 infections or febrile syndromes in 6 weeks or • ≥3 ENV/CLIM spikes (AQI/heat/damp) with <72 h recovery or • Any infection + 2 weeks of S✚ → treat as “stacking risk” and run PCTi prompts (Rowe 2014; Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

Budget relevance. Late detection increases the probability of chronic, multi-system cases that load VA medical programs and the TEF. Prevention that trims incident cases or severity in high-risk theaters translates into measurable savings — medical services, pharmacy, and adjudication tail — now reflected in VA performance dashboards and budget narratives (see updated PACT metrics).

Identifying Vulnerable Profiles 

The aim is to route support, not to exclude anyone from service. Screening outputs guide sleep protection, cleaner air, pacing education, and follow-up prompts so members enter deployments at a better baseline. These tools do not alter accession or retention standards and must not be used to deny opportunities. They function as quality-improvement signals inside medical channels, consistent with FM 7-22 and DoDI 6130.03-V1 (FM 7-22; DoDI 6130.03-V1).

Who we flag as “higher-risk”

A service member is considered terrain-fragile (and eligible for targeted supports) when any of the following are present:

1. Pre-existing physiologic hints

2. History of prolonged recovery after common infections or immunizations; prior PEM-like 24–72 h crashes after routine exertion (Rowe 2014; Raj 2020).

3. Orthostatic symptoms (lightheadedness, palpitations) or known dysautonomia; Beighton ≥4 or connective-tissue laxity features (Hakim 2017).

4. Recurrent herpesvirus activity (EBV/HHV-6) or recent febrile illness within 14 days (Su 2022; Peluso 2023).

5. Environmental pre-loadingHome/training history in higher-PM₂.₅ zip codes, smoke/heat volatility, or damp housing that raises baseline inflammatory load (Tessum 2021; Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

6. Early training signalsNew multisystem symptom pattern within 14 days of a definable trigger (E14), and/or delayed reactivity (DR) at 24–72 h after a standard training day (Hickie 2006; Rowe 2014).

Field-ready screen: Va-IRI™ Lite 

Use a simple, noninvasive checklist that relies only on ubiquitous inputs. Full immunophenotyping (e.g., T-cell exhaustion panels) is a future-state option for research hubs (Krumholz 2024).

Inputs:

• Infection check: symptoms/temperature; rapid antigen/PCR if symptomatic (hard red-line: no vaccination during active infection) (Su 2022).

• CBC with differential; CRP (or hs-CRP); ferritin when iron deficiency is suspected (CDC 2024a).

• Vitals + 3-minute stand test (rest→stand HR/BP) to surface orthostatic instability (Raj 2020).

• Sleep (last 3 nights) and shift pattern (FM 7-22).

• Function prompts at 0/24/48/72 h after a routine training day to detect DR/PEM (Rowe 2014).

• Context flags: smoke/heat/AQI spikes; damp billets; recent febrile illness (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

Bands (readiness for high-load periods such as mass immunization blocks):

• Green (≥75): proceed with routine supports (hydration, sleep hygiene, light 24–48 h).

• Yellow (55–74): proceed only with a “STAIR sandwich” (pre-/post-support, micro-titration), protect sleep for 72 h, and schedule light-duty windows.

• Red (≤54): defer high-load blocks; stabilize sleep/air/nutrition and reassess in 3–7 days. (Educational/research tool; not medical advice. Aligns with FM 7-22 and ACIP-concordant practice.)

Routing rules 

• Sleep protection: enforce FM 7-22 sleep pillar; avoid back-to-back night shifts during recovery (FM 7-22).

• Cleaner air: HEPA in sleeping areas during poor AQI; adjust outdoor blocks to AQI/heat feeds (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b).

• Pacing education: brief on delayed reactivity and how to modulate effort in the first 14 days after illness/immunization (Rowe 2014).

• Task rotation: limit continuous high-exposure windows to <4 weeks; redistribute during smoke/heat spikes.

• Timed biomarker windows (case-by-case): targeted EBV/HHV-6 markers or moisture/VOC inspection when history strongly suggests infectious or environmental ignition (Su 2022; Peluso 2023; Brewer 2013).

• Follow-ups: add Day 30/90/180 check-ins for Yellow/Red bands to monitor DR/E14 persistence and function (Klein 2023; Krumholz 2024).

Operational heuristics for “stacking” risk 

Treat as stacking risk and run PCTi prompts when any of the following occur within 6 weeks:

• ≥2 febrile illnesses, or 1 febrile illness + 2 weeks of significant sleep restriction (RS), or

• ≥3 ENV/CLIM spikes (AQI ≥151, major heat index days, or damp billet alerts) without 72 h recovery (Baxter 2021; CDC 2024b). These patterns commonly precede NRB in susceptible individuals (Hickie 2006; Raj 2020).

Guardrails: privacy, fairness, and scope

• Not for gatekeeping. Screens do not change accession standards, MOS eligibility, or retention decisions (DoDI 6130.03-V1).

• Privacy-respecting. Individual outputs remain in medical channels; commanders receive aggregate risk and mitigation summaries.

• One standard, many supports. The same program lifts all recruits while disproportionately protecting those from higher-burden zip codes (Tessum 2021; CDC 2024b).

4. High-Risk Theaters and PCT Classes

Figure 4. High-risk theaters and dominant PCT classes

Theater type	Example regions	Likely dominant PCT classes	Salient hazards	Practical mitigations
Arid or desert	Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Kuwait	Environmental; Infectious	Combustion products & PM₂.₅; heat; dust; solvents	Heat- and particulate-informed duty cycles; respirator-quality protection during spikes; distance from burn sources (Baxter 2021).
Temperate or wooded	Germany, Poland, Balkans	Infectious	Tick-borne disease; seasonal respiratory viruses; EBV activity	Tick prevention; rapid febrile-illness protocols; timing biomarker windows (Montoya 2018; Su 2022).
Tropical or jungle	Somalia, Philippines	Infectious; Environmental	Mosquito-borne disease; persistent damp/mold	Vector control; dehumidification/ventilation; moisture audits for billets (Brewer 2013).
Urban or industrial	Baghdad; port or heavy-industry zones	Environmental; Mixed	VOCs; water contamination; traffic emissions	Ventilation, filtration, water testing, solvent control and PPE; align duty to AQI/traffic peaks (Baxter 2021).

5. PCT-Mitigated Tour Design

Figure 5. PCT-mitigated tour design

Element	Current pattern	Recommended pattern for higher-risk profiles	Rationale
Tour length	6–12 months	3–6 months with staggered rotations	Reduce cumulative ENV/CLIM and preserve RC (Baxter 2021).
Dwell ratio	1:3 nominal	1:4 for higher-risk personnel	Extend recovery window and structured follow-up (Rowe 2014; Raj 2020).
Role rotation	Fixed high-exposure tasks	Rotate to limit continuous exposure windows <4 weeks	Lower Xobj and DR accumulation; prevent preventable PCTs.
Exposure alerts	Environmental feeds not linked to duty	Link unit schedules to particulate/heat alerts	Avoid preventable spikes; align to injury-prevention doctrine.
Recovery protection	Ad hoc	Protected sleep windows; micro-leave for early recovery	Improve RC and reduce chronicity (FM 7-22 sleep pillar; Go for Green® nutrition).

6. Vaccination Windows, Stacking, and Terrain Susceptibility

Mass immunization is a core readiness tool and prevented millions of deaths and hospitalizations (Watson 2022). At the same time, standard vaccine-safety systems were built for acute, common adverse events and can under-detect delayed, multi-system presentations that a small terrain-fragile subset report after vaccination (Lazarus 2022; Shimabukuro 2015). In a PCT lens, vaccination is a time-proximal physiologic stressor: for most, brief and self-limited; for a minority with immune/autonomic fragility, a short high-load window can behave like a PCT or stack with concurrent stressors (heat, sleep restriction, infections) to lower the threshold for NRB.

Evidence synthesis :

• Surveillance undercount for complex syndromes. Passive systems miss delayed, multi-system patterns; capture improves when using multi-model corrections and manufacturer post-marketing summaries (Lazarus 2022; Shimabukuro 2015; Pfizer 2021; EMA 2021–2022).

• Biologic signal in post-vaccination chronic cohorts. Emerging work reports immune differences (e.g., activated CD8⁺ populations, altered CD4 memory pools), herpesvirus reactivation markers, and autoantibody patterns in symptomatic individuals versus vaccinated controls (Krumholz 2024; Peluso 2023; Wang 2021; Vojdani 2021). These findings justify terrain-aware monitoring without negating vaccine benefits.

• Stacking windows matter. Symptoms that begin or intensify outside the usual 7–28 day AE window appear in patient cohorts; treating vaccination timing as T in PCTi, with E14 and DR sampling — and moderating RS (sleep) and ENV/CLIM (heat/PM) — is operationally coherent (Krumholz 2024; Baxter 2021).

Operational guidance for DoD/VA :

1. Boot camp & pre-deployment terrain prep. Screen briefly for orthostatic symptoms, syncope history, hypermobility, prior prolonged reactions, recent infection, sleep debt, and PEM-like reactivity. Stabilize modifiable context 2–3 weeks before high-reactogenic blocks: sleep protection, cleaner air in barracks (MERV-13/HEPA), hydration, and Go for Green® nutrition to lower background inflammatory load.

2. Do not vaccinate during active infection. Hard red-line consistent with immunology and ACIP best-practice intent.

3. Avoid “stacking” high-load stimuli in flagged recruits: if operationally feasible, avoid co-administration of multiple high-reactogenic products within 24–48 h; space the two most reactogenic doses by 7–14 days.

4. Treat the first 72 hours as a provocation window. Provide 0/24/48/72 h prompts (fatigue, orthostasis, chest discomfort, dyspnea, urticaria, cognitive fog); escalate on red flags per myocarditis/neurologic guidance; document BIO when present (e.g., troponin/ECG).

5. Extend follow-up for terrain-fragile members with Day 30/90/180 touchpoints; many terrain-amplified events manifest beyond Day 28 (Klein 2023; Krumholz 2024).

Boxes:

Box 6A — 72-hour light-duty for flagged recruits: avoid maximal exertion/heat cycles, protect sleep, deploy hydration + HEPA in sleeping quarters; symptom prompts at 0/24/48/72 h; trigger red-flag pathways as needed (Baxter 2021; Krumholz 2024).

Box 6B — Readiness lens: If local policy permits, use a brief readiness checklist (infection clearance, inflammation/coagulation terrain, baseline function) to time high-reactogenic blocks; treat it as education/research, not a clinical directive.

Box 6C — Va-IRI™ Lite (field-ready; research/education use) Purpose: a simplified readiness screen using only commonly available inputs to stage timing around high-reactogenic blocks. Full immunophenotyping (e.g., T-cell exhaustion markers) remains a future-state capability for research/centers of excellence (Krumholz 2024).

Inputs :

1. Infection check: symptoms + temp; rapid antigen/PCR if symptomatic.

2. CBC with differential; CRP (or hs-CRP); ferritin if anemia suspected.

3. Vitals + orthostatic 3-min stand (resting HR/ BP → standing HR/BP; capture orthostatic symptoms).

4. Sleep: last 3 nights hours; SCREEN (e.g., STOP-BANG) when indicated.

5. Function: 0/24/48/72 h prompts after a routine training day for PEM-style DR (Rowe 2014).

6. Context flags (no labs): recent febrile illness ≤14 d; heavy smoke/heat week; >2 night shifts (Baxter 2021; FM 7-22; CDC 2024b).

Scoring (0–100, simple): start at 100 and subtract:

• Active infection or fever: −40 (auto Red; defer) (Su 2022).

• CRP above lab ULN: −10; markedly elevated: −20.

• Resting HR >15 bpm above personal baseline or orthostatic HR rise ≥30 bpm with symptoms: −10.

• Sleep <6 h average over last 3 nights or ≥2 consecutive night shifts: −10.

• DR positive (moderate/severe symptoms at 24–72 h after routine day): −15 (Rowe 2014).

• Recent ENV/CLIM spike (AQI ≥151 or heat index ≥90°F) without mitigation: −5 (Baxter 2021).

Bands:

• Green (≥75): proceed with routine supports (hydration, sleep, light 24–48 h).

• Yellow (55–74): proceed only with a “STAIR sandwich” (pre-/post-support, micro-titration), protect sleep 72 h, light-duty window.

• Red (≤54): defer; reassess after 3–7 days of recovery. (Aligns with FM 7-22 sleep pillar; does not alter ACIP indications or Service medical standards.)

Future-state: add flow cytometry panels and cytokines for investigational stratification (Krumholz 2024). Not required for routine use.

7. Baseline Optimization in US Boot Camps and Pre-Deployment

7.1 Why “baseline” matters

US PM₂.₅ exposure is not evenly distributed; people of color and lower-income communities experience higher exposure on average (Tessum 2021). A universal baseline-optimization protocol both lifts all trainees and disproportionately protects those who are “pre-loaded” by environmental volatility.

7.2 Core program (boot camp & AIT)

• Air quality & damp control in barracks: maintain RH ~40–50%; remediate damp; HEPA in sleep areas during poor AQI; schedule training with AQI/heat feeds (Baxter 2021).

• Sleep-first training design: follow FM 7-22’s sleep pillar; progressive load with recovery windows to avoid early DR flares.

• Nutrition backbone: deploy Go for Green® across recruit dining facilities; emphasize whole-foods, hydration, and salt guidance for autonomic stability.

• Fix common baselines: screen iron deficiency when indicated; optimize asthma; quick Beighton; short orthostatic check; daytime sleepiness triage for sleep apnea. Comply with DoDI 6130.03-V1 accession standards; use PCTi to route supports, not to gate accession.

• PCTi “lite” prompts during two training evolutions to surface DR and early windows.

• Micro-education: short brief on delayed reactivity and post-illness pacing.

7.3 Pre-deployment “Zero-Month” tune-up

3–4 weeks pre-departure: recheck sleep or HRV snapshots; quick PCTi update; confirm field filtration/mask plan for dust/smoke; review heat-stress SOPs (FM 7-22).

7.4 Metrics

PCTi improvement; RS indicators (sleep hours ↑); reduced sick-call/limited duty days; completion of 0/24/48/72 h prompts; % of smoke/heat events with documented mitigation.

8. Economic Impact & ROI

Veterans with deployment-linked chronic conditions drive material pressure on VA’s medical programs and the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF). PACT Act performance data highlight the scale and persistence of claims and screenings (6.40 million screenings; 1.58 million approved PACT claims; 2.85 million PACT claims submitted; 2.62 million completed as of Aug 2025).

What drives cost

• Incident IACC cases avoided. Each prevented chronic case avoids multi-year utilization across primary care, specialty clinics (cardiology, neurology, allergy/immunology), diagnostics, and pharmacy; costs rise with multimorbidity (Solve M.E. 2022).

• Severity reduction among incident cases. Early stabilization lowers admissions, imaging cascades, and polypharmacy; CDC program evaluations show chronic-disease models return positive net savings when scaled (CDC 2024a; CDC 2024b).

• Productivity and readiness. Lower symptom burden improves retention and reduces limited-duty downtime; national estimates for mental-health-linked productivity losses illustrate the order of magnitude (Davis 2022).

• Administrative tail. Fewer/simpler claims reduce processing and appeals overhead as PACT volumes mature; dashboard trends support ongoing high throughput (VA PACT Dashboard). 

Assumptions & method

• Baseline anchors: VA FY2025 Medical Programs and TEF lines (budget narratives), plus live PACT dashboard for throughput context. 

• Eligible population: PACT-eligible cohorts and state-level volumes (dashboard suite).

• Per-patient annual cost bands: VA multimorbidity and disease-management literature support $6,000–$15,000 incremental annual medical cost for complex chronic veterans, higher with ≥3 conditions (CDC 2024b; Solve M.E. 2022).

• Program effectiveness: Preventing 10–30% of IACC cases via PCT detection + rapid stabilization is consistent with ranges seen in chronic-disease program ROI and early toxic-exposure mitigation (CDC 2024a; CDC 2024b).

Direct medical offsets (template): Let N be recently deployed service members/veterans entering monitoring annually; p incidence without mitigation; Δ relative reduction (0.10–0.30). Savings ≈ N × p × Δ × Cost_per_case.

Example at modest scale (N=100,000; p=0.20; Δ=0.20; Cost=$10,000): $40M year-1 direct medical offset. Scaling to N=500,000 across multi-year cohorts yields $200M per active year (ex-TEF).

TEF and claims-processing tail: Each prevented chronic case reduces award probability and rating severity — lowering TEF disbursements and shortening adjudication time. A 5–10% reduction in toxic-exposure-linked chronic claims within high-volume states produces measurable processing savings and reduces variance in monthly TEF draws (dashboard).

Three-case ROI scenarios (illustrative):

• Conservative: Δ=0.10; N=150k; cost $350 per member-year (screening, wearables, exposure feeds, coaching). Net −$22.5M in year-1; breakeven requires tighter targeting or adding TEF/claims tail savings.

• Base case: Δ=0.20; N=250k; add TEF/claims ops +$10–20M. Net +$22.5–$32.5M in year-1; multi-year accrual compounds.

• Focused high-risk: Δ=0.30; N=150k targeted to high-exposure theaters and high PCTi. Net +$45.5–$52.5M in year-1; payback <12 months.

Sensitivity & governance: Cost per case ±$3,000 shifts net by ±$9–27M; Δ improves where theater ENV/CLIM is intense (heat/PM, vector-borne); targeting

PCT-high strata (prior EBV, low HRV, damp billets, heavy smoke exposure) yields the strongest ROI.

Bottom line: Even conservative, auditable assumptions yield positive ROI once programs target high-risk profiles and count TEF/claims tail effects — with upside as case severity falls and multi-year benefits accrue.

9. Methods Appendix 

Layer-1 PCT detection (PCTi, 0–10): T (temporal ignition), DR (delayed reactivity 24–72 h), E14 (early 14-day window), BIO (timed biomarkers/exposure metrics), Xobj (objective exposome context), RC (recovery conditions). Classify confidence (Definite/Probable/Possible/Indeterminate), then assign PCT class (Infectious, Environmental, Surgical/Trauma, Toxicant-mix, Unknown).

Layer-2 burden modulators: V (viral burden/reactivation), ENV/CLIM (toxic load + climate volatility), RS (recovery suppression). Apply compact population/personal formulas to track burden and intervention effects over time (Su 2022; Baxter 2021).

10. Conclusion

A PCT-aware approach clarifies ignition (what happened, when, and of what class) and burden (why illness persists or scales in particular people or units). Treating environment and recovery as co-determinants rather than confounders makes prevention actionable: shorter/de-risked rotations for flagged personnel, task rotation away from the highest-exposure duties, and in-theater activity adjustments on smoke/heat days.

The missing piece has been pre-exposure baseline optimization. Many recruits arrive with elevated ENV/CLIM load; intense training can stack RS; and unrecognized fragilities (orthostatic intolerance; hEDS traits) add variance. Building air-sleep-nutrition programs into boot camps and AIT — paired with quick PCTi prompts and existing Service guidance (FM 7-22; Go for Green®) — raises resilience before deployment, reduces early NRB events, and improves equity (Tessum 2021; Baxter 2021).

On the back end, PACT Act scale shows both the stakes and the opportunity. With PCTi detection, ENV/CLIM/RS feeds, and baseline optimization, DoD and VA can jointly reduce incidence, shorten chronicity, and lower cost, while preserving the force. Updated dashboard metrics make the case for prevention-first policy (6.40M screenings; 1.58M approved PACT claims; 2.85M submitted; 2.62M completed as of Aug 2025)

References

Peer-Reviewed Literature

1. Afrin, L. B., Weinstock, L. B., & Molderings, G. J. (2020). Mast cell activation disease and the modern epidemic of chronic illness. Translational Research, 174, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2016.01.007

2. Baxter, M., Sheehan, M. C., & Clougherty, J. E. (2021). Environmental exposures and chronic disease inequities in urban settings. Environmental Health, 20(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00731-9

3. Bilmes, L. J. (2021). The Long-Term Costs of United States Care for Veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. The Costs of War Project, Watson Institute, Brown University.

4. Brewer, J. H., Thrasher, J. D., Straus, D. C., Madison, R. A., & Hooper, D. (2013). Mold and mycotoxin exposure in chronic fatigue syndrome. Toxins, 5(12), 2521–2538. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins5122521

5. Castro-Marrero, J., Cordero, M. D., Sáez-Francàs, N., et al. (2016). Mitochondrial dysfunction and potential treatments in ME/CFS. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 22(35), 5218–5235. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612822666160720152304

6. Davis, H. E., McCorkell, L., Vogel, J. M., & Topol, E. J. (2023). Trial design failures in long COVID and ME/CFS. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 21, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00873-8

7. Davis, L. (2022). The Economic Burden of PTSD in the US Military and Veteran Population. RAND Corporation.

8. Grubb, B. P. (2022). Postural tachycardia syndrome and other forms of chronic autonomic failure. Circulation, 146(8), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057319

9. Hickie, I., Davenport, T., Wakefield, D., et al. (2006). Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral or non-viral pathogens. BMJ, 333(7568), 575. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38933.585764.AE

10. Klein, J., et al. (2023). Immune signatures and T-cell exhaustion in ME/CFS and long COVID. Clinical and Translational Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cti2.1426

11. Krumholz, H. M., et al. (2024). Post-vaccination syndrome: characterization of a new chronic condition following immunization. medRxiv. [Preprint] https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.21.24307692

12. Lazarus, R., et al. (2022). Safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines: A perspective. Vaccine, 40(20), 2795–2803.

13. Montoya, J. G., Holmes, T. H., Anderson, J. N., et al. (2018). Cytokine signature associated with chronic fatigue syndrome severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 114(34), E7150–E7158. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710519114

14. Peluso, M. J., Deeks, S. G., & Henrich, T. J. (2023). Persistent herpesvirus activity and long COVID symptoms. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 77(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac873

15. Raj, S. R., Guzman, J. C., Harvey, P., et al. (2020). Postural tachycardia syndrome: Features, diagnosis, and management. Circulation, 141(12), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045401

16. Rowe, P. C., Barron, D. F., Calkins, H., Maumenee, I. H., Tong, P. Y., & Geraghty, M. T. (2014). Orthostatic intolerance and chronic fatigue syndrome in adolescents. Pediatrics, 113(3), 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.3.429

17. Shimabukuro, T. T., et al. (2015). Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine, 33(36), 4398–4405.

18. Su, Y., Yuan, D., Chen, D. G., et al. (2022). Multiple early factors anticipate post-acute COVID-19 sequelae. Cell, 185(5), 881–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.014

19. Tessum, C. W., et al. (2021). PM2.5 polluters disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the United States. Science Advances, 7(18), eabf4491. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf4491

20. Theoharides, T. C. (2019). Mast cells and inflammation. Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 201, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.05.006

21. Tomas, C., Newton, J., & Watson, S. (2017). Bioenergetic dysfunction in ME/CFS. Metabolic Brain Disease, 32(2), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11011-016-9896-6

22. Vojdani, A., et al. (2021). Potential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseases. Clinical Immunology, 217, 108480.

23. Wang, E. Y., et al. (2021). Diverse functional autoantibodies in patients with COVID-19. Nature, 595(7866), 283–288.

24. Watson, O. J., et al. (2022). Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 22(9), 1293–1302.

Government Reports, Doctrinal Publications, and Official Sources

25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024a). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) Strategy and Funding. Retrieved from [CDC.gov]

26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024b). Climate and Health Program: Evidence and Resources. Retrieved from [CDC.gov]

27. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). (2022). Understanding the PACT Act. Retrieved from [crfb.org]

28. Department of Defense. (2020). Army Field Manual 7-22: Holistic Health and Fitness.

29. Department of Defense. Go for Green® (G4G) Nutrition Initiative.

30. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03, Volume 1, "Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction".

31. European Medicines Agency (EMA). (2021-2022). Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs) for COVID-19 Vaccines.

32. Pfizer. (2021). Post-Marketing Experience Summary for COVID-19 Vaccine.

33. Solve M.E. (2022). ME/CFS and long COVID: Prevalence and economic burden. Retrieved from [solvecfs.org]

34. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023a). PACT Act Performance Dashboard. Retrieved from [VA.gov]

35. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023b). VA Health Care Enrollment and Utilization Dashboard. Retrieved from [VA.gov]

36. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2024a). FY 2025 Budget Submission: Medical Programs.

37. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2024b). FY 2025 Budget Submission: Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF).

38. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2024). PACT Act Monthly State Data Workbook.

39. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Press Releases. (2024-2025). Updates on PACT Act Implementation and Screening. Retrieved from [VA.gov]

Proprietary Frameworks and Internal Citations (CYNAERA)

40. CYNAERA. (2024-2025). The Uncounted: US-CCUC™, VITAL™, S³, PULSE™, IMPACT™ Methodologies. Internal Systems Documentation.

41. Va-IRI™ (Vaccination Immune Readiness Index). (2025). CYNAERA Research and Education Framework v1.0.

All insights, frameworks, and recommendations in this white paper reflect the author's independent analysis and synthesis. References to researchers, clinicians, and advocacy organizations acknowledge their contributions to the field but do not imply endorsement of the specific frameworks, conclusions, or policy models proposed herein. This information is not medical guidance.

Applied Infrastructure Models Supporting This Analysis

Several standardized diagnostic and forecasting models developed through CYNAERA were utilized or referenced in the construction of this white paper. These tools support real-time surveillance, economic forecasting, and symptom stabilization planning for infection-associated chronic conditions (IACCs).

Note: These models were developed to bridge critical infrastructure gaps in early diagnosis, stabilization tracking, and economic impact modeling. Select academic and public health partnerships may access these modules under non-commercial terms to accelerate independent research and system modernization efforts.

Licensing and Customization

Enterprise, institutional, and EHR/API integrations are available through CYNAERA Market for organizations seeking to license, customize, or scale CYNAERA's predictive systems.

Learn More: https://www.cynaera.com/systems

About the Author 

Cynthia Adinig is an internationally recognized systems strategist, health policy advisor, and the founder of CYNAERA, an AI-powered intelligence platform advancing diagnostic reform, clinical trial simulation, and real-world modeling for infection-associated chronic conditions (IACCs). She has developed 400+ Core AI Frameworks, 1 Billion + Dynamic AI Modules. including the IACC Progression Continuum™, US-CCUC™, and RAEMI™, which reveal hidden prevalence, map disease pathways, and close gaps in access to early diagnosis and treatment.

Her clinical trial simulator, powered by over 675 million synthesized individual profiles, offers unmatched modeling of intervention outcomes for researchers and clinicians.

Cynthia has served as a trusted advisor to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, collaborated with experts at Yale and Mount Sinai, and influenced multiple pieces of federal legislation related to Long COVID and chronic illness. 

She has been featured in TIME, Bloomberg, USA Today, and other leading publications. Through CYNAERA, she develops modular AI platforms that operate across 32+ sectors and 180+ countries, with a local commitment to resilience in the Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. region.