Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:57 pm
but my progression was like Sandy's: next to nothing for about twenty years
sarah these two statments confuse meantibiotic regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS
Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
but my progression was like Sandy's: next to nothing for about twenty years
sarah these two statments confuse meantibiotic regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS
Quote:
next to nothing for about twenty years,
Quote:
antibiotic regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS
Sarah these two statements confuse me
Me too, Sarah! Infection must have been at the root of your probable stenoses, and certainly your MS. The question is, will it be everyone else's? Hoping we'll have more answers this year, as I know you and David are, too.Anecdote wrote: I really hope that Zamboni's work will lead to something that might help people lke you, perhaps alongside antibiotics, because I really believe an infection must be at the root of all this, otherwise why should my disease have been stopped in its tracks just by taking a mixture of three antibiotics?
Sarah
So they go on to say thatThis systematic review found that the strongest and most consistent predictors of long-term physical disability in patients with relapsing-onset MS are sphincter symptoms at onset and early disease course outcomes. Bladder or bowel symptoms at onset, incomplete recovery from the first attack, a short interval between the first and second attack, and early accumulation of disability should alert clinicians to a potentially worse disease course.
Many MS experts believe that female sex, younger age at onset, optic neuritis, and sensory symptoms at onset indicate a more favorable prognosis in patients with RRMS, whereas motor or cerebellar symptoms at onset predict a more severe course.33-34
In this methodologically rigorous and systematic review, we show that many of these factors have no consistent influence (eg, optic neuritis), weak effects (eg, sex, age at onset, and cerebellar involvement), or no effect (eg, sensory symptoms) on prognosis. A critical review of the existing literature does not support using these factors to guide treatment decisions or predict prognosis for patients with RRMS
Notice that first bold "would have been unlikely to benefit from therapy" What they are saying is that her course was expected, based on these natural MS studies to be mild and no improvement over her EXPECTED mild course could have been obtained.Many clinical trials in RRMS routinely enroll patients with a normal neurological examination result, regardless of disease duration and the test drug safety profile. The enrollment criteria for these trials make no attempt to target patients at high risk of developing disability. While this may be acceptable for safe drugs, it seems unreasonable for drugs with serious or unknown toxicities. One woman who received natalizumab during one such recent trial2 died of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. According to the findings of this systematic review, she had no significant risk factors for developing long-term disability, and would have been unlikely to benefit from therapy. Until other reliable indicators of prognosis are identified, we recommend that enrollment in clinical trials of drugs with unknown safety or efficacy profiles be restricted to patients with early accumulation of disability, incomplete recovery from a first attack, and/or bowel or bladder symptoms at onset.