Analysis backs birth-month effect in MS

[MSUK]

Birth month had a significant association with multiple sclerosis (MS), suggesting as much as a 12% swing in risk, probably reflecting ultraviolet (UV) light exposure and maternal vitamin D levels, authors of a meta-analysis concluded.

Data on more than 150,000 patients with MS showed a 5% excess of cases among patients born in April and 5% to 8% reductions in MS risk associated with birth in October or November.

A more conservative analysis showed even greater excess risk in April and May and greater reductions in risk in October and November, as reported online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

"This study, which uses the largest number of patients to date, confirms and extends the month of birth effect seen in MS," Ruth Dobson, MRCP, of Queen Mary University of London, and co-authors wrote. "Through the demonstration of an interaction between month of birth effect magnitude and latitude, it supports ambient UV radiation, and hence maternal vitamin D levels, as prenatal environmental modulators of MS risk.

"This finding, which supports concepts hypothesized some years previously, surely adds weight to the argument for early intervention studies to prevent MS through vitamin D supplementation," they added.... Read More - http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseact ... ageid/1936

[euphoniaa]

Data on more than 150,000 patients with MS showed a 5% excess of cases among patients born in April and 5% to 8% reductions in MS risk associated with birth in October or November.

Well, as a November baby myself (just passed my B-Day), all the studies telling me I beat the odds and got MS anyway don't mean a whole hell of a lot to me. Nor, I assume, would they matter much to my cousin with MS who was born in early December.

[Leonard]

The other thread of yesterday on vitamin D in pregnancy is related to this matter http://www.thisisms.com/forum/general-d ... 21166.html

But the researchers have it all mixed up.
Of course, the risk of MS relates to the date of birth.
What is important here is the vitamin D available during the main phases of cellular growth.
The cell composition (and number of vit D gates) is related to the vit D available in the blood,
that is of the mother (fetus) and the own blood stream (adolecence).

The vitamin D relationship itself is more complex or in the minds often convolved.
There is the matter of the cell composition.
Vit D supplementation then is probably affecting the gut flora (and peptides for natural antibiotics).
The vit D metabolism in the blood then may in some way be related to the gut concentration
but there is an advanced regulatory loop as well between active and non-active vit D
and that is influenced by disease activity (reverse active to non-active).
In this same context, it is unclear to me whether there is a difference between the own body generated D and the administered D.

A highly consistent picture is elaborated on
http://www.thisisms.com/forum/general-d ... 15188.html
When the Vit D receptor is enabled again, 1000 or more genes are transcribed again,
with effects on the gut and other organs, and also the nerves..
The body is able to take matabolic control again..

[Cece]

I saw the article too. I wonder if the researchers have ever checked to see if women with MS are more likely to get pregnant in July and August. That would give you a genetic reason for more babies who later develop MS being born in April and May.

CCSVI seems to have an effect on the autonomic nervous system, which is involved in menstruation and reproductivity. We don't know if the heat of summer or higher vitamin D levels or sun radiation has an effect on CCSVI or MS that might improve the odds of getting pregnant during the summer months.