This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Sun May 19, 2013 9:43 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Treatments » Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 13
  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
fiddler
 Post subject: 80% for CDMS - It's Real
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:32 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Folks, I've just received an e-mail from the Canadian Press medical reporter. The statistics she reported (38% for CIS, 80% for CDMS) were NOT in the BNAC press release - they came from her interview with Zivadinov. I know that these numbers are still causing some debate and head-scratching, but at least you should know that it isn't the result of calculations done by an over-eager, mathematically-challenged reporter: they came from the horse's mouth.

Here is the link to the article itself:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h9fFcp3BUaMrK7YnuZlWEAgfVkvw

...Ted

_________________
Dx SPMS in 2004.  Liberated 29/04/2010.
My blog: www.my-darn-ms.blogspot.com


Last edited by fiddler on Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
ozarkcanoer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:55 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
fiddler,

Thanks for the info. But my head is reeling !! Why didn't Zivadinov report this in the press release ? There are so many %s floating around I don't know what to believe. These numbers certainly look more hopeful !!

ozarkcanoer
Top
 Profile  
 
fiddler
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:00 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Fredericton, Canada
In the reporter's own words:
Quote:
If I may, I would caution that the findings released are very preliminary and it is difficult to assess them without seeing the actual study. A more in-depth analysis of the data will be released in April at a meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, and hopefully the full study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal after that.

And as I said in my article _ and Dr. Zivadinov agreed _ this is not "proof" of progression. It is merely an observational association at this point.

While I would be delighted if there is a connection that could end up in a treatment to help people with MS (including a dear friend of mine), as a longtime medical writer I worry about creating what could be false hope in people with the disease before anything is proven.

Hopefully that will be sooner than later.


_________________
Dx SPMS in 2004.  Liberated 29/04/2010.
My blog: www.my-darn-ms.blogspot.com
Top
 Profile  
 
tazbo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:08 pm 
Offline
Family Member

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 90
Location: Canada
I'm a bit stunned. Does this mean a reporter who actually gave a statement of what was said has had the stats changed...and this person e-mailed you to clarify this?
Top
 Profile  
 
cah
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:11 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Germany
Hm... if s/he's worried about false hopes, then s/he definitely has the wrong profession. Medical writers usually don't report on well known facts...

_________________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Socrates
Top
 Profile  
 
berriesarenice
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
Family Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 80
Location: USA
It sounds like she got a better breakdown than we did. Did she have any more numbers to flesh out the picture? Exactly which groups were included with each other? Did CIS+CDMS make up entire MS group? How many were there of each? What was RRMS/SPMS/PPMS split? Did the normal group include other neurological diseases? How many of normal group were family members of MS patients? etc.
Top
 Profile  
 
TFau
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 222
ozarkcanoer wrote:
fiddler,

Thanks for the info. But my head is reeling !! Why didn't Zivadinov report this in the press release ? There are so many %s floating around I don't know what to believe. These numbers certainly look more hopeful !!

ozarkcanoer


I agree - didn't he know what kind of uncertainty this would cause. Why did he apparently only tell one reporter the 38%/80% numbers. Also, I don't think that the medical writer should worry about getting our hopes up. She should just report the science.

Usually, preliminary numbers are indicative of the final numbers - if they weren't, you'd have to really wonder what was going on throughout the whole process, right?
Top
 Profile  
 
frodo
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 521
For sure, Zivanidov referred to this when he said that his trial will stir discussion. Now it seems that CIS people is less affected by CCSVI than CDMS people.

I really cannot think that MS (lesions in the brain) could cause a vein malformation

Therefore, if the numbers are confirmed, this leaves two possibilities:

a) The stenosis and venous malformations are not congenital, but progressive, and there is still an unknown latent problem in MS patients that produces venous deformations and in turn, lesions in the brain.

b) CIS is not always an early MS and there are other factors that can lead to a CIS diagnosis.

Let's see how this evolves ...


Last edited by frodo on Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
fiddler
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:18 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Fredericton, Canada
No tazbo, what was reported in the Canadian Press was that, while the incidence of CCSVI in ALL MS patients was 55% (as the BNAC press release said), Zivadinov indicated that it was 80% in Clinically Diagnosed MSers. So nothing has changed from what has been discussed in other threads: while the incidence of CCSVI MAY be 55% (or 65%, depending how you count it) for some sort of broadly defined category of MSer (and we don't know how that was defined) it is 80% for people who have been clinically diagnosed.
...Ted

_________________
Dx SPMS in 2004.  Liberated 29/04/2010.
My blog: www.my-darn-ms.blogspot.com
Top
 Profile  
 
tazbo
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:20 pm 
Offline
Family Member

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 90
Location: Canada
fiddler wrote:
No tazbo, what was reported in the Canadian Press was that, while the incidence of CCSVI in ALL MS patients was 55% (as the BNAC press release said), Zivadinov indicated that it was 80% in Clinically Diagnosed MSers. So nothing has changed from what has been discussed in other threads: while the incidence of CCSVI MAY be 55% (or 65%, depending how you count it) for some sort of broadly defined category of MSer (and we don't know how that was defined) it is 80% for people who have been clinically diagnosed.
...Ted

Thx Ted
Top
 Profile  
 
fiddler
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:36 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Fredericton, Canada
berriesarenice, I don't think she had any more information than that. I expect we need to see the published results before we can have a better understanding of what it all means. Perhaps she only got that information because she was the only reporter who asked Zivadinov the right questions.
...Ted

_________________
Dx SPMS in 2004.  Liberated 29/04/2010.
My blog: www.my-darn-ms.blogspot.com
Top
 Profile  
 
Billmeik
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
so what does clinically diagnosed mean? Are these clinics with MRI's or are they just looking at symptoms. Do the clinics have lumbar puncture?
Top
 Profile  
 
dunkempt
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:02 pm 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 142
Location: Heart of the Continent
Quote:
Therefore, if the numbers are confirmed, this leaves only one possiblity: The stenosis and venous malformations are not congenital, but progressive, and there is still an unknown latent problem in MS patients that produces venous deformations and in turn, lesions in the brain.


Does there have to a distinction between congenital and progressive?

A predisposition for veins to collapse (for example) would likely reveal itself more over time and wouldn’t necessarily need a second cause - though it would be easy to imagine compounding risks (Vitamin D, smoking, or whatever).

Others (say, those with missing veins) would be more purely congenital.

-d
Top
 Profile  
 
ozarkcanoer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:03 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Ok, fiddler, NOW I understand (too many lesions on my brain.. some 40 odd). For some reason Zivadinov decided to report CIS and CDMS as "people with MS", but if you break out CDMS and CIS then 80% of CDMS had CCSVI and 38% of CIS had CCSVI. It would have saved a lot of heartache and confusion if the press release had stated this !!

ozarkcanoer
Top
 Profile  
 
fiddler
 Post subject: Clinically Diagnosed
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:09 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Billmeik, I assume clinically-diagnosed means those who have been diagnosed with MS (by a doctor) on the basis of the progression of MS symptoms and evidence (from MRI, lumbar puncture). If I'm wrong about that, I hope (and fully expect) to be corrected... :D
...Ted

_________________
Dx SPMS in 2004.  Liberated 29/04/2010.
My blog: www.my-darn-ms.blogspot.com
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 13
  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

Board index » Treatments » Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Is it 80% for CDMS?

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

TFau

37

4260

Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:30 pm

Cece View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. A real Thanksgiving!!

jay123

2

1010

Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:45 am

Mutley View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. COULD THIS BE FOR REAL? THE FUTURE MIGHT BE HERE.

blossom

9

598

Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:21 pm

blossom View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Payment Request, is it real???

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

alby

33

3731

Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:17 pm

alby View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Patience everyone, CCSVI is real.

magoo

13

1539

Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:10 pm

Cece View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: