Sunday, 30 October 2011

CSSVI News: Pro Data

Bastianello S, Romani A, Viselner G, Colli Tibaldi E, Giugni E, Altieri M, Cecconi P, Mendozzi L, Farina M, Mariani D, Galassi A, Quattrini C, Mancini M, Bresciamorra V, Lagace A, McDonald S, Bono G, Bergamaschi R. Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis: Clinical Correlates from a Multicentre Study. BMC Neurol. 2011 Oct 26;11:132.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) has recently been reported to be associated with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, its actual prevalence, possible association with specific MS phenotypes, and potential pathophysiological role are debated.

METHOD: We analysed the clinical data of 710 MS patients attending six centres (five Italian and one Canadian). All were submitted to venous Doppler sonography and diagnosed as having or not having CCSVI according to the criteria of Zamboni et al.

RESULTS: Overall, CCSVI was diagnosed in 86% of the patients, but the frequency varied greatly between the centres. Even greater differences were found when considering singly the five diagnostic criteria proposed by Zamboni et al. Despite these differences, significant associations with clinical data were found, the most striking being age at disease onset (about five years greater in CCSVI-positive patients) and clinical severity (mean EDSS score about one point higher in CCSVI-positive patients). Patients with progressive MS were more likely to have CCSVI than those with relapsing-remitting MS.

CONCLUSION: The methods for diagnosing CCSVI need to be refined, as the between-centre differences, particularly in single criteria, were excessively high. Despite these discrepancies, the strong associations between CCSVI and MS phenotype suggest that the presence of CCSVI may favour a later development of MS in patients with a lower susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and may increase its severity.

You said
: Why are we wasting our time with this two bit theory? I come on this blog to learn about B cells, EBV, Vit D... CCSVI ruined another MS website I used to visit and I can see it happening here - the followers treat it as a religious cruscade. Let's take a decision not to give it any more time - there are plenty of other websites dedicated to CCSVI.

In the interests of balance it is important that we document positive as well as negative papers, concerning CCSVI. Furthermore, any silence on this subject matter would suggest that the venonous attacks and threats, by the crusaders, for negative posts have frightened us into submission. On face value given the data so far presented there appears to be little merit in this as a real concept.

However, we take the academic literature as an inspiration for the posts and as the CCSVIers have now got the MS Socieities investing heavily to investigate this, these posts will continue to crop up, as more an more papers appear in response to this investment. Based on what was presented at ECTRIMS these are looking likely to be negative, so perhaps a Very Expensive Damp Squib rather than a firework moment.

However, this will not distract us from posting on things that we believe are interesting. We do this as they appear in the literature, websites, financial markets or in response to your questions. I too have personally found this subject matter a bit tedious and maybe we should limit discussion to a round-up every now and again, in case something actually changes (I'll discuss this with Prof G when he returns).

Maybe I could replace it with "EAE-Cure of the Day" as this occurs generally daily/bidaily.........." of course mice don't get MS, who said they did?".

However, I am sure most of you are not interested in this either and unless they hit the media, or are earth shattering news, I think it is pointless spending the time to discuss this science fiction as so much of it becomes science fanasty that gets sucked into the black hole of scientific rubbish. What you want to know is science fact that is of relevance to you within a tangible amount of time..

As you may have noticed, we are not taking comments on these posts.......saves alot of aggrevation on both sides of the divide!