Dr. Dake at CIRSE

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby frodo » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:56 am

gibbledygook wrote:
Although there is no cure, very effective disease modifying drugs are available; such as interferons, gatiramer acetate, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, and a number of recently approved oral drugs. Furthermore, monoclonal humanized antibodies that deplete specific subgroups of lymphoctes such as alemtuzumab (antibody against CD52 lymphocytes) or daclizumab (interleukin receptor CD25) seem to have very strong effects on the disease activity and the disability.


If the drugs are so good then why is anyone interested in CCSVI?! How I laughed when I read the first abstract!


And again, they overlook that all those drugs offer no explanation about how MS develops or how the autoimmunity appears!! and they still dare to apply the word "unscientific" to others.
User avatar
frodo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Cece » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:16 am

Very effective drugs! Well, then. It's amazing any of us have any health complaints at all, with all these very effective drugs around.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Hopeful10 » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:31 am

In addition to the pro/con debate Cheer posted about at the beginning of the thread (with Dake, Doepp, and a couple others), there are also three CCSVI poster presentations at the conference:

P-237 - Evaluation of hemodynamic changes using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) MRI in patients with MS and Zamboni’s CCSVI
P-492 - Usefulness of IVUS in diagnosis of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis
P-504 - Initial experience treating chronic cerebro spinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI): preliminary results in 15 patients

Here's a link to the posters (to view the posters, you will need to click-through and then expand the link at the bottom of the page titled "EP 2011: Electronic Posters"): http://abstracts.webges.com/myitinerary/day.html
User avatar
Hopeful10
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Cece » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:24 pm

Presentation Time: 2:00 PM - 2:00 PM

Pres. No.: P-237 - Evaluation of hemodynamic changes using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) MRI in patients with MS and Zamboni’s CCSVI

S. Marziali, F.G. Garaci, M. Melis, S. Fabiano, M. Stefanini, A. Meschini, M. Fornari, D. Centonze, R. Floris, G. Simonetti
Rome/IT

Purpose:
To evaluate cerebral hemodynamic changes using DSC-MRI in normal appearing white matter (NAWM) of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (MS+CCSVI+), compared with MS patients without CCSVI (MS+CCSVI-) and healthy subjects (controls).

Material and Methods:
From a series of MS patients enrolled by our institute and evaluated with color-Doppler-ultrasound (CDU) and phlebography, in order to establish the prevalence of CCSVI in MS we selected 42 patients: 32 satisfied the CDU criteria set by Zamboni et al. to diagnose CCSVI, 10 did not fall under those criteria. We evaluated a control group of 10 healthy subjects. Values of cerebral blood volume (CBV), cerebral blood flow (CBF) and mean transit time (MTT) were calculated in the semioval center, periventricular, frontal and peritrigonal NAWM. The perfusion data obtained in each area of NAWM were compared between the three groups.

Results:
Decreased CBV was observed in MS+CCSVI+ patients in the semioval center (p<0.001), frontal (p=0.004) and peritrigonal NAWM (p=0.006), no differences were seen in the periventricular NAWM. MS+CCSVI+ patients showed reduction of CBF in all the NAWM (semioval center p<0.001; frontal p=0.01; peritrigonal p=0.008; periventricular p=0.008). Different MTT values were seen in the frontal NAWM (p=0.04), there were no differences in the remaining areas.

Conclusion:
MS+CCSVI+ patients show CBF and CBV anomalies at multiple levels in the NAWM, both with respect to controls and MS+CCSVI-. Despite these data seemed to be very interesting, further studies are needed on a larger study group.

I had some difficulty with the link but was able to find them through a search. Here's the first.

It's interesting that this is looking at the differences between people with MS and CCSVI, people with MS but not CCSVI, and healthy controls. Are there people with MS but not CCSVI? I am not sure.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Cece » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:44 pm

Presentation Time: 2:00 PM - 2:00 PM

Pres. No.: P-492 - Usefulness of IVUS in diagnosis of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis

M. Stefanini, S. Fabiano, C. Del Giudice, C.A. Reale, S. Marziali, V. Cama, R. Gandini, G. Simonetti
Rome/IT

Purpose:
Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) is a cerebrospinal venous disease that recently has been considered related to multiple sclerosis. Diagnosis may be performed by Doppler ultrasonography and angiography. One limit of angiography is the lack of visualization of venous wall aspects. We investigated in our study the usefulness of IVUS to detect CCSVI anomalies.

Material and Methods:
From September 2010 and January 2011, 13 patients with multiple sclerosis and CCSVI, evaluated by Doppler US, were enrolled in this study. Venography was performed through a left transfemoral retrograde access with 5 Fr introducer sheet. Venography and IVUS control was performed at ileo-lumbar level, bilateral jugulars and azygos vein.

Results:

All patients showed a stenosis of at least one vein. In all cases IVUS confirmed flebographic control. IVUS allowed to evaluate anomalous valve movement that was not evident at flebographic control in 5 patients (38%). 4 patients (31%) had an anomalous membrane of azygos vein. Moreover, a double lumen aspect was present in some cases.

Conclusion:
IVUS is a useful device to detect venous anomalies in CCSVI. Particularly it allows a complete evaluation of valve movement that could not be performed with flebographic control. Moreover, it is fundamental to evaluate the Azygos vein structure that could not be showed clearly with US Doppler.

In this small study of 13 patients, IVUS was used to find stenoses that would not have been otherwise found in 38% of them.

It is fantastic to see some statistics on the usefulness of IVUS in CCSVI.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Cece » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:56 pm

Presentation Time: 2:00 PM - 2:00 PM

Pres. No.: P-504 - Initial experience treating chronic cerebro spinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI): preliminary results in 15 patients

G. Eisele, C. Schulte, M. Cannellotto, D. Simonelli, P. Perez Leguizamon
Buenos Aires/AR

Purpose:

To evaluate feasibility, tolerance and initial response to balloon angioplasty in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and imaging confirmed CCSVI.

Material and Methods:

Fifteen patients with MS (8 women) were selected for this treatment (7 relapsing-remitting, 8 secondary progressive). After informed consent, the evaluation consisted in neurologic (EDSS, MSIS 29, fatigue, heat tolerance and sleepiness scale), laboratory and cervical color Doppler ultrasound (CDU) tests. Internal jugular veins (IJV), azygos phlebography and manometry were performed with standard technique previous to angioplasty. Initial follow-up from 3 months consisted in neurologic and CDU control. Complications described were related to angioplasty. Definitions include: positive, absent and mixed response.

Results:

Angioplasty was feasible in 15 cases and 3 patients suffered minor complications without neurologic effect. CDU showed 2 Zamboni´s criteria of CCSVI in most of the affected IJV and excellent phlebographic correlation in 27/30 studied IJVs. Four, 6 and 5 patients had phlebographic Zamboni´s type A, B and C. Before treatment, patients presented with mean EDSS scores of 5.5 to 6 and 10 of them improved scores in scales after angioplasty at 3 months. Seven over 26 treated IJVs had restenosis in 6 patients. One case had positive response despite restenosis, 3 patients relapsed neurologic disabilities after angioplasty. The other 2 patients did not reply to angioplasty.

Conclusion:

CCSVI has close relation with MS and venous angioplasty can be used safely with excellent tolerance to improve MS symptoms. In some patients, disabilities relief after balloon angioplasty may be limited because of restenosis and/or other still unknown mechanism.

Improvements in EDSS scores in ten of the patients at three months. Very nice! There has been some research that showed only improvements in fatigue (although as a fatigue-sufferer, it is hard to use the words "only" and "fatigue" in the same sentence....)

Restenosis is still high, if at 3 months there were 7 out of 26 IJVs had restenosed.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby cheerleader » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:24 pm

Thanks Hopeful and Cece for posting the posters and explaining them...glad to see there was more positive research being presented. Let me explain, Dr. Dake was there to encourage double blind, placebo controlled studies.

He was not there to sell anything, but to encourage cooperation between vascular and neurological practices. He has had a heck of a time getting his university colleagues to agree on the parameters of his fully funded study. He's ready to go, but the neurologists are foot-dragging on end points. Many of us believe this is a stalling ploy to keep the status quo, and slow the research to a halt, so that other new therapies (such as Lemtrada, Tovaxin, etc.) can reach the MS marketplace.

I thought it was interesting someone mentioned Dr. Mark Freedman on this thread, as someone with hyperbolic statements...he's now a paid member of the scientific board for Opexa Therapeutics, reviving Tovaxin from the grave of financial collapse after the less than stellar results http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stor ... ory11.html
From September 2008:
Opexa Therapeutics Inc.’s stock plummeted to a new low, losing nearly all its value in one day last week after the biopharmaceutical company presented disappointing results on its latest clinical trial on Tovaxin, a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis patients.


And he is on governmental panels, deciding treatment for MS patients. If that's not a direct conflict of interest, I do not know what is.

THE WOODLANDS, Texas, Sep 12, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Opexa Therapeutics, Inc. OPXA +6.30% , a company developing Tovaxin(R), a novel T-cell therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS), today announced it has recently added a key international opinion leader to its Scientific Advisory Board. Mark Freedman, M.D., is a professor of medicine in the field of neurology at the University of Ottawa, and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit at the Ottawa Hospital, General Campus. He will be joining other colleagues of high regard on Opexa's Scientific Advisory Board: Dawn McGuire, M.D. (Chair), Doug Arnold, M.D., Edward Fox, M.D., Ph.D., Hans-Peter Hartung, M.D., Clyde Markowitz, M.D., Paul O'Connor, M.D., and Arthur Vandenbark, Ph.D.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dr-mar ... 2011-09-12
recognize any other familiar names on the Opexa board?

cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5015
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Lyon » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:26 pm

..
Last edited by Lyon on Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby JCB » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:35 pm

Lyon wrote:I'd be less than honest if I didn't admit how honored I am that you obviously spent so much time and effort on damage control tailor made for me personally


Is that an admission of trying to cause damage?
User avatar
JCB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Lyon » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:30 pm

..
Last edited by Lyon on Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby NZer1 » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:00 pm

Quote;Pres. No.: P-492 - Usefulness of IVUS in diagnosis of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis ;
"All patients showed a stenosis of at least one vein. In all cases IVUS confirmed flebographic control. IVUS allowed to evaluate anomalous valve movement that was not evident at flebographic control in 5 patients (38%). 4 patients (31%) had an anomalous membrane of azygos vein. Moreover, a double lumen aspect was present in some cases.

Conclusion:
IVUS is a useful device to detect venous anomalies in CCSVI. Particularly it allows a complete evaluation of valve movement that could not be performed with flebographic control. Moreover, it is fundamental to evaluate the Azygos vein structure that could not be showed clearly with US Doppler."

The interesting thing in all these types of study is that it often not what they say, it is what they don't say. Did the IVIS testing cover the entire vein group that are associated with vein flow issues? If not why not state that as well.

In my mind this is a statement that could easily be overlooked. If there is such an increase in findings with the use of IVIS then what does it say about the findings that are stating CCSVI either does not exist or is not found in their studies?
There is to much conflicting evidence that is taken seriously, if the equipment for doing the Doppler is not equal to that used by Zamboni then that is also saying that the researchers did not want to find CCSVI and purely wanted to discredit and distract science.
Food for thought,
Regards Nigel
User avatar
NZer1
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby NormB » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:02 pm

Quote: "yet Freedman is demonized for doing the hard thing"
He was my neurologist and as soon a patient of his is in the progressive stage such as I,
his interest in your case diminishes rapidly. He accepts gladly patients in the Relapsing Remitting stage since they are the less affected where any expensive drugs can seem to work until ....
I went the whole nine yards with him, from interferon to chemo for 2 1/2 years where then after you are left on your own. That's the limit of his care. Or rather he asks the patient to be refered to another neurologist. I was asked and I knew the limit of his care.

My CCSVI intervention last October gave me back the most relieft of my many symptoms such as leg strenght and stamina, bladder control and more. It is not a cure but very welcomed in symptoms management. Alas the downside in my case, is its lasting for only 4 months when restenosis came back. Dr Zamboni's research is on a good track but still have a long way to achieve long lasting beneficial effects.

Sorry for my frenglish way of expression. Born french and voilà.

Take care All

NormB
'92 diag RR - '05 SP
On LDN since Sept. 2012 with better quality of life.
User avatar
NormB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Near Ottawa Canada

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby Lyon » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:20 pm

..
Last edited by Lyon on Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby 1eye » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:18 pm

gibbledygook wrote:
Although there is no cure, very effective disease modifying drugs are available; such as interferons, gatiramer acetate, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, and a number of recently approved oral drugs. Furthermore, monoclonal humanized antibodies that deplete specific subgroups of lymphoctes such as alemtuzumab (antibody against CD52 lymphocytes) or daclizumab (interleukin receptor CD25) seem to have very strong effects on the disease activity and the disability.


If the drugs are so good then why is anyone interested in CCSVI?! How I laughed when I read the first abstract!


If the main action of Tysabri is to reduce the adhesion of leukocytes to the blood vessels, so they have a harder time crossing the BBB, then it is not modifying the disease, but the symptom! Sure, secondary autoimmunity has its own symptoms, but even that has a more primary cause. What is causing the breach that has to be plugged with Tysabri? What is causing the leukocytes to stick? According to Dr. Simka, it is ICAM-1 expressed when the flow is too slow to have sufficient shear.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2876
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Re: Dr. Dake at CIRSE

Postby cheerleader » Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:27 am

Here is Dr. Dake's complete commentary from CIRSE
https://www.facebook.com/notes/ccsvi-al ... 2522843116

Michael Dake Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford, California, USA

No matter where you stand on the recent controversy surrounding the concept of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) and its proposed association with multiple sclerosis (MS), it is increasingly clear that this theoretical phenomenon challenges interventionalists with far more questions then there are answers readily available. Whether an unconvinced sceptic, open-minded observer, perplexed clinician, hostile critic or convinced believer, no one is dispassionate and all have to agree that nothing in recent history has rocked our field with the emotionally polarising force of CCSVI.

Currently, the themes of a myriad of big picture questions concerning CCSVI can be consolidated into three important considerations:
1. Does treatment of CCSVI cure MS?
2. Does CCSVI have a fundamental role in causing MS?
3. Does endovascular therapy produce objectively measured patient benefits beyond a placebo effect?

Certainly, other equally important and more detailed diagnostic, pathophysiologic, anatomic, technical, and safety questions challenge us, but as interested parties seek to embark on collaborative controlled trials to study the outcomes of CCSVI treatment, it is perhaps prudent and beneficial to pause and examine current snapshots of these three general issues. Based on the initial clinical experience to date and with some literary license, the following comments provide perspectives that attempt to summarise the contemporary opinions of interventionalists actively involved in the treatment of CCSVI.

The present consensual view of interventionalists and hopeful patients is resigned to the conclusion that treatment of CCSVI is not a cure for MS. Debates rage over what roles, if any, CCSVI may play in conjunction with the genesis, progression and symptoms associated with MS, but even the most evangelical CCSVI advocates understand that relief of extracranial venous obstruction will not magically re-myelinate com- promised axons or reverse existing plaques.

The question of whether CCSVI has a function in the genesis of MS is extremely contentious. Perhaps, it looms as one of the most inflammatory issues for many neurologists because it challenges the widely held immune/auto-immune paradigm that dominates MS research models and clinical treatment concepts. The influence of the doctrine that “establishes” the immune basis for MS is profound, despite the lack of a clear understanding of how an immune mechanism is involved in the initiation of disease and subsequently, its episodic course.

Clearly, a genuine collaboration that respectfully encourages involvement of all interested
parties could lead to the most objective, efficient and conclusive scientific investigations of CCSVI, but make no mistake; this will require the successful tackling of many tough challenges. Daunting impediments include: vested interests, silos with different cultures, hidden agendas, and diverse levels of understanding, strong egos, messenger killers, entrenched dogmatists, sanctimonious pontificators, cynical nihilists, and a whole range of biases.

Obviously, no one denies that interventionalists are ill-equipped to exclusively shepherd clinical treatment trials aimed at providing meaningful results informed by prior experiences that refined safety and efficacy metrics to objectively investigate new drug therapies. On the other hand, what has been learned from the initial observational phase of CCSVI treatment is informative and should not be wholesale discounted.
For example, it is now apparent that after endovascular therapy, certain constitutional or general symptoms common to MS patients, such as fatigue, heat intolerance, clouded cognition, urinary problems, cold distal extremities etc., respond in a tempo that ranges from hours to days rather than the usual weeks or months typically necessary to achieve full benefits and clinical stabilisation with pharmacological disease-modifying therapies.

It is in everyone’s interest to contribute to the development of new therapeutic concepts capable of delivering improved treatments that yield greater benefits for MS patients and their families. In terms of CCSVI, this involves the performance of high-quality randomised controlled trials incorporating objective analyses of results using standard measurements of outcomes established in the MS literature while taking into account other potentially positive responses related to the endovascular management of venous obstruction.

Perhaps, there are unrealised synergistic opportunities with the combination of therapeutic modalities. It is conceivable that disease-modifying drugs, together with endovascular treatment of CCSVI, working through different mechanisms to manage the disease process, have the potential to incrementally benefit patients beyond what can be achieved with a single approach. After all, it is not far-fetched to expect that combination therapies targeting different aspects of a progressive disease process might improve upon the relatively modest therapeutic advantages realised with current therapies.

Indeed, recent publications in the medical literature have questioned the exaggerated cost/ benefit ratio for patients administered current disease-modifying therapies. The wisdom and value of sustaining therapeutic approaches that cost more than $800,000 per quality- adjusted life year (QALY) – about 10 times as expensive as what is generally considered cost- effective –- may undergo further scrutiny in the future (1). Similar studies that detail benchmarks for therapeutic effectiveness in other important diseases have informed and ultimately guided decisions by insurance organisa- tions and government healthcare agencies responsible for healthcare payments.

Currently, the long-term results of endovascular treatment of patients with CCSVI are unknown. Although it is estimated that 15,000 patients have been treated worldwide, many have not received adequate follow-up surveillance. This is often due to the lack of local or regional opportunities for undergoing the initial proce- dure. In many cases, this results in patients travelling long distances to undergo therapy, but subsequently leaves them without any continuity in medical care for follow-up at home.

Without the ability to capture the important necessary data for longitudinal follow-up evaluations in a large percentage of patients, the reports to date of early treatment experience have focused on detailing the safety of the procedure and immediate responses. The initial experiences of endovascular treatment of CCSVI published in the medical literature are consistent in documenting the safety of balloon angioplasty (PTA), (and in smaller groups, stent placement following failure of PTA) and lack of associated serious adverse events (2-4). The frequencies and range of procedure-related complications is similar to those established for endovascular interventions involving other venous territories, including substantial experience in iliac veins, vena cavas, and brachiocephalic veins.

Many prominent neurologists have dismissed the concept of CCSVI as totally implausible and absolute lunacy; at best, an annoying distraction that steals attention from promising new drug therapies and at worst, a simplistic farcical ruse conjured to trick susceptible patients into chasing an expensive illusion. Proponents of CCSVI contend that its relevance to the location of typical perivenous plaque in MS is supported by the presence of documented correlates elsewhere in the body. They argue that the his- tological appearance of perivenous cuffing evident in MS plaques is similar to the perivenous tissue reaction observed in a variety of other anatomic territories where there is chronic obstruction of a venous bed – such as, leg veins in the setting of chronic deep venous thrombosis (post-phlebitic syndrome), and hepatic veins associated with an obstructive venopathy like Budd-Chiari.

When presented with this notion, many neurologists are in disbelief that such a ludicrous idea could be seriously entertained. “Prevalence studies would indicate that chronic venous insufficiency of the legs and MS are as far apart pathologically as possible.”

Underappreciated in the midst of these clashing positions is one other example of a similar venous lesion with potential relevance to MS – sheathing of retinal veins. This cuffing or sheathing of veins can be appreciated on fundoscopic examination of the eyes and may be associated with retinal vein thrombosis, optic neuritis and vision loss. In the majority of cases when it is diagnosed during an evaluation of disturbed vision, it occurs in patients with MS. Studied extensively at the Mayo Clinic, it is not however singularly associated with cases of established MS. Its frequency among MS patients is estimated to range from 11% to 42%. After fluoroscein dye administration, it is possible to observe leakage of dye around the retinal veins and histologically, the veins display a thickened wall similar to appearances observed in other chronically obstructed venous territories.

When contemplating the possible association between venous obstruction, blood-brain barrier leakage, myelin destruction and immune mechanisms responsible for the initiation of MS, it is interesting to note that the retinal nerve fibres are not myelinated in 99% of the population.

As CCSVI is just one of many potential considerations that may fit as single pieces in a large puzzle that ultimately influences the development of MS in a particular individual, it is not terribly troublesome at our level of disease understanding to allow that not all MS subjects possess the identical predisposing conditions. The specific contributing elements may be different among MS patients and an individual’s disease severity, tempo of progression, symptoms and response to therapies may be highly dependent on his/her collection of characteristic factors.

Not unlike the case of another disease – gastric ulcers – whose aetiology was once “known” until its pathogenesis was disruptively redefined by a radical idea, not all patients with Helicobacter pylori develop peptic ulcer disease. Similarly, not all individuals with PSEN1, PSEN2, APP, or APOE develop Alzheimer’s disease, and not all patients with MS have retinal vein sheathing. There is a lot we do not know about the pathogenesis of a great many diseases and perhaps with MS, we currently still face more questions than we have answers.

References:
1. Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dis- ease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population- based study. Neurology. 2011;77:355-363
2. Zamboni P, Galeotti R, Menegatti E, et al. Endovascular treat- ment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, a prospec- tive open-label study. J Vasc Surg. 2009;6:1348-1358
3. Ludyga T, Kazibudzki M, Simka M, et al. Endovascular treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency: is the procedure safe? Phlebology. 2010;25:286-295
4. Petrov I, Grozdinski L, Kaninski G, et al. Safety profile of endo- vascular treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18:314-323
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5015
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

PreviousNext

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users