Tag Archives: social

Pregnancy and childbirth, Women's health

Concerns about parenting

Being disabled or unemployed because of MS does not mean you cannot be a good parent. Here I cover some of these practical considerations as well as the steps you can take to reduce the potential risk of your child developing MS.

Can I be a good parent if I become disabled from my MS?

This is difficult to answer and depends on how disabled you are, the nature of your disabilities and whether you have support. For example, some patients who are wheelchair users, or close to being wheelchair users, when they give birth manage to nurse and look after their children. On the other hand, some patients with cerebellar problems find it very difficult to bathe, change and feed their babies due to poor coordination and tremor. If you have advanced MS, the decision to start or extend your family needs to be discussed with your partner. If necessary, ask an occupational therapist to assess you and discuss all the issues relevant to you becoming a parent. Disability per se is not a reason not to have children, but it does raise important issues that need careful consideration. The decision to have children needs to be taken by you and not by your HCP.

If I become disabled or unemployed because of MS, will I be able to support my children?

This is another difficult question, and the answer depends on your circumstances. In the modern era having children and supporting them is expensive, but most high-income countries have social safety nets to protect you and your family in times of adversity. We now have effective DMTs that prevent or delay disability, so deciding to have children is easier than it was in the pre-DMT era.

What is the risk of my children getting MS?

MS is not a genetic disease in the Mendelian sense that you pass on to your children with a well-defined inheritance pattern. However, there are genetic factors that increase your risk of getting MS. In high-prevalence countries such as the UK, the lifetime chances of a woman developing MS is about 1 in 375 ̶ 400; for a man, it is close to 1 in 750 ̶ 800. However, for a daughter whose mother has MS, the risk is close to 1 in 40, and for a son, it is lower than 1 in 80. In some studies, the latter risk is no higher than the background rate. If the father has MS, the risk of his daughter developing MS is about half the risk of mother ̶ daughter pairing, i.e. 1 in 70. For a son of a father with MS, the risk is likely lower than this, but the results across studies are inconsistent.  

Can I prevent my children from getting MS?

Based on the known and modifiable risk factors for MS, you should try and keep your children vitamin D replete. To do this, you will likely need to supplement your children’s vitamin D intake as follows:

  • for children less than 2 years of age, 600 IU per day
  • for children 2 ̶ 10 years of age 2,000 IU per day
  • for children above 10 years of age, 4,000 IU vitamin D3 per day (the same dose we recommend for adults).

Other modifiable risk factors are childhood and adolescent obesity and smoking. We estimate that about 15 ̶ 20% of new or incident new cases could potentially be prevented by eliminating obesity and smoking in the general population. I must stress that these suggested interventions are based on studies that show associations between the risk factors and MS but may not necessarily be cause and effect. I should also point out that most people with all the risk factors for MS will not get the disease. This implies that the development of MS involves other random factors, or bad luck, that can’t necessarily be modified.

The issues raised above show you how complex the management of MS has become, which is why there is a push for people with MS to be managed in specialist MS units.

References

Krysko KM et al. Treatment of women with multiple sclerosis planning pregnancy. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2021;23:11.

Other articles in this series on Pregnancy and childbirth
Planning for pregnancy
Managing MS during pregnancy
Preparing to give birth
Breastfeeding if you are on a DMT

DMTs, Treatment strategy

How immunosuppressed am I?

Do you understand the difference between short-term intermittent and long-term continuous immunosuppression? Here we address another of the key questions to consider before deciding on a specific disease-modifying therapy (DMT).

Key points

  • Immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) reduce the immune system’s effectiveness.
  • It is important to weigh up the benefits and risks of short-term versus continuous immunosuppression.
  • Non-selective DMTs suppress the adaptive and innate immune systems; selective DMTs do not affect the innate immune system and are thus associated with a low risk of bacterial infections.
  • The implications of immunosuppression need to be considered within the context of other health and lifestyle factors.

Which DMTs cause immunosuppression?

A useful way of thinking about DMTs is based on whether they are immunosuppressive. Broadly speaking, an immunosuppressive is any DMT that reduces the immune system’s activation or effectiveness. 

From a regulatory perspective, for a drug to be classified as immunosuppressive, it should: 

  • cause significant lymphopaenia or leukopenia (reduced white cell counts)
  • be associated with opportunistic infections (infections that don’t occur in people with a normal, healthy immune system)
  • reduce antibody and/or T-cell responses to vaccines 
  • increase the risk of secondary malignancies. 

Based on the above criteria, the interferon-beta preparations and glatiramer acetate are immunomodulatory rather than immunosuppressive. Teriflunomide is also an immunomodulatory therapy with the potential, albeit small, to cause immunosuppression. In real life, however, very few people with MS treated with teriflunomide develop significant lymphopaenia or leukopenia; if they do, we tend to stop the drug. The other licensed DMTs are immunosuppressive to a greater or lesser degree. 

Short-term versus continuous immunosuppression

The duration and intensity of immunosuppression further determine the risks. Short-term or intermittent immunosuppression associated with an immune reconstitution therapy (IRT) front-loads the risks, which decrease substantially once the immune system has reconstituted itself. In comparison, long-term continuous or persistent immunosuppression, which occurs with most maintenance DMTs, accumulates problems over time, particularly opportunistic infections and secondary malignancies.

Live vaccines are, in general, contraindicated in patients on continuous immunosuppressive therapies. However, someone with MS on an IRT who has reconstituted their immune system can tolerate and respond to live vaccines. The benefits of administering live vaccines always need to be balanced against the risks of the vaccine.

How immunosuppressed are you table

The main characteristics of continuous persistent and short-term (intermittent) immunosuppression. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Selective versus non-selective immunosuppression

Immunosuppression that accompanies DMTs may be selective or non-selective. Non-selective therapies deplete and/or suppress both the adaptive immune system (T cells and B cells) and the innate immune system (monocytes, neutrophils and natural killer [NK] cells). Alemtuzumab, AHSCT (autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and mitoxantrone are non-selective and are therefore associated with acute bacterial infections such as listeriosis, nocardiosis and cytomegalovirus reactivation. In comparison, anti-CD20 agents (ocrelizumab and ofatumumab) and cladribine are selective, do not affect the innate immune system and are therefore associated with a low risk of acute bacterial infections. 

How immunosuppressed are you_MET vs IRT_6 Sept 2022

Classification of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing forms of MS. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.1
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Other considerations

Please note that the implications of immunosuppression are not black and white but interact with other factors such as:

These factors have been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in relation to the risk of severe COVID-19 and the variations in vaccine responses among people with MS (including waning of the immune response).

It is important to realise that we can derisk (reduce the risk of) some complications associated with long-term immunosuppression and the use of DMTs. Please see the post entitled How can I reduce my chances of adverse events on specific DMTs?

References

  1. Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:233 ̶ 43.
Diagnosis

Am I sure that I have MS?

The multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis rate is around 5% and this has major implications for individuals and the treatment of MS.

Key points

  • A wrong diagnosis of MS may have financial, social and psychological consequences for the individuals concerned, affecting major life decisions.
  • Some MS treatments have life-threatening complications and should only be prescribed for people with a clear diagnosis of MS.
  • Some of the diseases that mimic MS can be made worse by disease-modifying treatments for MS.
  • Diagnostic criteria for MS have evolved and now take account of clinical, electrical, laboratory and magnetic resonance imaging findings.

A case study

She had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 8 years ago and had been taking interferon-beta since her diagnosis. I told her that I didn’t think she had MS and that her diagnosis was almost certainly complicated migraine with aura. The lesions on her magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan were non-specific white matter lesions and not inflammatory. Her neurological examination, spinal fluid analysis and evoked potentials (EPs) were normal. What clinched the non-MS diagnosis for me was the history of neurological events, which were too short-lived and migratory to be MS attacks. The final piece of the jigsaw was that a special MRI sequence showed none of her white matter lesions had a central vein, which told me that none of her white matter lesions was an MS lesion.  Her anger was palpable. She was angry because she had decided not to start a family and had changed her career because of the fear of becoming disabled in the future and not being able to work or look after a child.  This case illustrates why I always try to review the diagnosis of patients referred to me with MS and why it is important to answer this question before starting a disease-modifying therapy (DMT).   

Making a diagnosis of MS

Unfortunately, there is no single test to diagnose MS. Rather, MS is diagnosed by combining a set of clinical and MRI findings, electrical or neurophysiological investigations and laboratory tests. If these tests fulfil a set of so-called MS diagnostic criteria, the healthcare professional (HCP) or neurologist makes a diagnosis of MS. 

The underlying principles of diagnosing MS are to show the dissemination of lesions in space and time and exclude possible mimics of MS. The diagnostic criteria have evolved over time from 1) being based purely on clinical attacks,1 to 2) include electrical and spinal fluid tests as well as clinical attacks,2 and 3) to add on the use of MRI to help confirm dissemination in time and space.3–6  

Dissemination in time 

This means that two attacks or MS lesions must occur at least 30 days apart or that oligoclonal bands (OCBs) of immunoglobulins can be detected in the spinal fluid.

Dissemination in space 

This requires MS lesions to occur in different locations, for example, the optic nerve and the spinal cord. 

Electrical tests

The electrical or neurophysiological tests are called evoked potential (EPs) and test electrical conduction in a particular pathway. They can show lesions in nerve pathways that are not evident on the neurological examination or seen on MRI. The EPs can also show slow electrical conduction, which is one of the hallmarks of diseases that affect myelin, the insulation around nerves that is responsible for speeding up the electrical conduction of nerve impulses.

Laboratory tests

The laboratory tests are typically done to exclude other diseases that can mimic MS. Examining the spinal fluid for the presence of OCBs is useful in helping to make an MS diagnosis. OCBs are the fingerprint of a specific type of immune activation within the central nervous system (CNS). The OCB fingerprint is relatively specific for the diagnosis of MS in the correct clinical context. (OCBs are also found in CNS infections and other autoimmune diseases, but these are relatively easy to differentiate from MS.)

Please be aware that you may have MS according to the latest diagnostic criteria when you could not be diagnosed with MS using past criteria.

Why is a correct diagnosis important?

Neurologists get the diagnosis wrong in approximately 5% of people with MS. In other words, one in 20 people who have a diagnosis of MS in life does not have MS when their brain is studied post mortem. This data is based on a large study in a region of Denmark.7 More recently, a study from a specialist MS centre in the United States reported a misdiagnosis rate of approximately 15% in patients with presumed MS referred to their centre for treatment.8 

Why is getting the diagnosis of MS correct so important? Firstly, some MS treatments have life-threatening complications; you don’t want to expose people without MS to these complications. More concerning is that some of the diseases that mimic MS can be made worse by MS DMTs. Finally, a diagnosis of MS has many psychological, social, financial and economic implications. Even if you turn out to have ‘benign disease’, just having a diagnosis of MS, has implications for your life choices and may impact your ability to get insurance cover, to name obvious examples. I, therefore, advise you to make sure you have MS and not an MS mimic.

Common MS mimics

References

  1. Schumacher GA, et al. Problems of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis: Report by the Panel on the Evaluation of Experimental Trials of Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1965;122:552–68.
  2. Poser CM, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227–31.
  3. McDonald WI, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–7.
  4. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 2005;58:840–6.
  5. Polman CH, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302.
  6. Thompson AJ, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–73.
  7. Engell T. A clinico-pathoanatomical study of multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Acta Neurol Scand 1988;78:39–44.
  8. Kaisey M, et al. Incidence of multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in referrals to two academic centers. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2019;30:51–6.