This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

This was a blinded study. The reason for the two groups, immediate treatment and delayed treatment, was to remove any bias in results found after PTA. The neurologists DID NOT know who had been treated.

An important message from Dr. Zamboni regarding the newly published study placed online today. This is the 2nd CCSVI endovascular treatment study undertaken in Ferrara, Italy. The patients were Italian and American. The follow up testing was blinded. The neurologists who followed these patients in Buffalo DID NOT know who had been treated with PTA, and who wasn't. There were two groups, immediate treatment group, and delayed treatment group, The MRI technicians and neurologists were blinded as to who was in which group. This is very important to understand. Angioplasty for CCSVI reduced lesions, reduced gray matter atrophy and reduced relapses. Here's the note from Dr. Zamboni--
___________________________________________________________

Here attached for you, from the site of the European Journal of Vascular Endovascular Surgery, the second treatment study. This study is also known as MS-EVT treatment of American and Italian patients who have traveled from across the Atlantic to be treated.
http://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884 ... 2/abstract

The study design is unique in the history of medicine. The patients were operated on in Ferrara, but the results were audited in Buffalo. Patients were divided into two mixed groups of Italians and Americans. The first ITG (immediate treatment group) was operated on immediately, while the second group DTG (delayed treatment group) was treated six months later, allowing us to compare the ITG with DTG. Finally, we compared patients in the second six months, when both groups were operated on. Then, all patients were compared with their original state during the previous year, prior to PTA.

The study is small (we had no money to do more), however, is very strong, certainly stronger than that of 2009 JVS, as it eliminates many of the criticisms of the latter. Particularly--

1. There is a control group for comparison, in practice it as a randomized as possible for use in surgery
2. MRI measures are rigorous, high-standard 3-tesla, comparable and indisputable as completely blind
3. Patients were evaluated by neurologists and neuroradiologists of two centers
4. Statistical analysis was done by an independent statisticians and blinded.

What does it prove

1. Both groups after the PTA had a significant improvement in the MSFC score compared to previous year, with substantial maintenance of EDSS (no disease progression)
2. In the ITG during the first 6 months there were fewer relapses. The percentage has been on an annual basis of 0.16 against 0.66 of the DTG. In fact the DTG in the first six months received only drugs. After surgery, the DTG no longer had more relapses than the ITG, confirming the protective effect of PTA on relapses.
3. ITG T2 lesion load decreased while the DTG increased. After the PTA in the DTG lesion load stabilized during the second six months.
4. Complications were zero, zero thrombosis
5. 27% restenosis
6. ITG had one patient- despite the PTA, who had a recurrence and worsening on the MRI, confirming that the MS-CCSVI can not be handled alone by only interventionist. This article suggests the causes of deterioration after PTA on which new studies are needed.

More results

1. Ahead Zivadinov and all 17 consecutive patients had venography confirmed CCSVI
2. the ITG had an effect more pronounced in brain volume reduction than that of the DTG, a likely anti-edema and anti-inflammatory effect of the PTA.

Key messages

* CCSVI is associated with MS --as the first treatment of the condition changes the clinical parameters of the second
* The modification of parameters in a blinded MRI is totally immune from the placebo effect, then measured the improvements are real
* The treatment is safe in safe hands and can be beneficial
* To say after these two pilot studies, positive treatment studies, epidemiological studies have to wait is not sustainable

Paolo Zamboni, MD
Director, Vascular Diseases Center
University of Ferrara

* CCSVI is associated with MS --as the first treatment of the condition changes the clinical parameters of the second
* The modification of parameters in a blinded MRI is totally immune from the placebo effect, then measured the improvements are real
* The treatment is safe in safe hands and can be beneficial
* To say after these two pilot studies, positive treatment studies, epidemiological studies have to wait is not sustainable

* The modification of parameters in a blinded MRI is totally immune from the placebo effect, then measured the improvements are real

reduced lesion load .... is always good news.
anyone know how many pwMS in this study were taking DMD's ?

2. In the ITG during the first 6 months there were fewer relapses. The percentage has been on an annual basis of 0.16 against 0.66 of the DTG. In fact the DTG in the first six months received only drugs. After surgery, the DTG no longer had more relapses than the ITG, confirming the protective effect of PTA on relapses.
3. ITG T2 lesion load decreased while the DTG increased. After the PTA in the DTG lesion load stabilized during the second six months.

The duplex prevalence of CCSVI in MS was 100%, whereas, in eight normal subjects used as controls in the CVIMS studies, the prevalence was 0%.7,9 Of the 16 patients, 15 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and agreed to participate (eight from Italy and seven from Buffalo).

While I admit these results are interesting how in the world can you make these "key points" after all the recent studies show no correlation between CCSVI and MS??

It is clear at this point that the other studies were flawed. In fact, negative results published to date are inconsistent among them, going from finding no CCSVI in any patient to find CCSVI in nearly every patient including healthy people.

Besides, performing wrongly a test in a study can lead to a negative bias, while performing specially well the test will not introduce a positive bias. At this point I think we can consider the results of Zivadinov the correct results and any other study that contradicts this as a lack of expertise of the doctors performing the tests.

Besides, performing wrongly a test in a study can lead to a negative bias, while performing specially well the test will not introduce a positive bias. At this point I think we can consider the results of Zivadinov the correct results and any other study that contradicts this as a lack of expertise of the doctors performing the tests.

Should I explain you slowly the argument?