Proving EBV is the cause of MS

There is some healthy scepticism about my comment that I think we have found the cause of MS and it is EBV. 




What should we do about it?




I gave the Charcot lecture earlier this year at the NIH. In the lecture, I made the point that the epidemiology and biology of MS are coming together around the B-cell and EBV and that it is looking increasingly likely that EBV is the cause of MS. 


Although my slides tell the story it is important to stress that proving causation is a complex process and the only way to prove that EBV is the cause of MS is to prevent EBV infection and see what happens to the incidence and prevalence of MS over time. This hypothesis is based on many epidemiological studies, but the most compelling piece of data is the observation that people who are EBV negative are protected from getting MS. Yes, protected from getting MS.


One hurdle we have at the moment is that we don’t yet have a good sterilising vaccine to prevent EBV infection. The latter is a technological challenge and there are very good vaccinologists working on bivalent and trivalent vaccines as we speak. Let’s hope they are safe and effective.



Some of you may know that I now wear two hats. My new hat is that I am a co-director of the Preventive Neurology Unit within the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine and one of the diseases we are focusing on is MS. This is one of the main reasons I left Queen Square to move to Barts and The London; I wanted to work on EBV and MS. 


In October 2016 we held a task force meeting on EBV as a cause of MS (see PDF below). The conclusions of the meeting was a unanimous yes; we need to go ahead and design and perform EBV vaccination trials to try and prevent MS. The latter is easier said than done, but that is our direction of travel, with ‘many miles to go before we sleep’. 


There will be a lot of naysayers along the way but to quote Arthur Schopenhauer, ‘All truth passes through three stages; first, it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and finally, it is accepted as self-evident’.


Premature ovarian failure and the menopause

Are premature ovarian failure and the menopause important to people with MS?


If you have your menopause before the age of 40 it is considered premature and hence abnormal. If you are older than 40 it is considered normal.


Premature menopause is one of the main reasons women with MS are turning down the option of being treated with HSCT. The chemotherapy they use for myeloablation is toxic to ovaries. Our London based haematologists are quoting a figure of ~45% risk of premature ovarian failure (POF) from HSCT. The latter is age dependent; the older you are the higher the risk. 

If future pregnancy is an issue post-HSCT you can have your eggs harvested and frozen down. However, this takes time. From experience, this delays HSCT by 3-4 months and the cost of storage of the eggs and fertility treatment is not necessarily covered by the NHS. In England, this comes down to your Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and what its fertility policy is. Unfortunately, the level of fertility treatment offered is very much a ‘postcode lottery’ and is determined by each individual CCG. Some CCGs may not fund treatment if, for example, you have existing children – even if they are not from the current relationship, don’t live with you and/or are grown up. Some may fund if one partner has no children. You can find out the situation in your area at the Fertility Fairness website. 


Menopausal symptoms, post HSCT and chemotherapy, can be treated with by hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

Menopause is important for pwMS. Several studies show that in women with MS, menopause is associated with worsening disability. The average change in disability is very small but significant. The results, however, suggest this observation has a biological basis and can, therefore, potentially be manipulated to treat MS; i.e. by giving HRT. Whether these observations are due to a loss of the neurotrophic effects of oestrogen on the brain and nervous system or ageing is a moot point. The first study below did not find any impact of HRT on disability, but too few women were on HRT to be able to see a reliable effect on the outcome. We know from the dementia field that HRT is likely to delay the onset of dementia, therefore I would not be surprised if HRT had an impact on brain health in MS. 

Do you think we should do a study of HRT in women with progressive MS? Or should we simply offer women with MS the option of starting HRT? The latter has been difficult in view of some of the negative effects of HRT, i.e. an increased incidence of cardiovascular events, breast cancer and deep vein thrombosis. However, it is reassuring that a recent large meta-analysis published in JAMA did not show an increase in all-cause mortality (death) as a result of HRT. Therefore, you can now go onto HRT without having to worry about reducing your lifespan. However, you still need to be aware of a slightly higher risk of breast and endometrial cancer and thrombotic events on HRT compared to not being on HRT.

Another issue is that a lot of the symptoms due to the menopause can be confused with MS-related symptoms, for example, fatigue, low mood and brain fog. Menopause is known to worsen MS-related symptoms (study 2 below). This is another reason to potentially go onto HRT. Menopausal brain fog is covered in a recent New York Times article (The Brain Fog of Menopause). 


Finally, it is important to know that menopausal age is not affected by MS (study 3 below). However, long-term methylprednisolone and IFNβ-1b treatments may change menopausal age in a dose-dependent manner. I am not sure if these observations are clinically significant.

I am often asked what would I do if I had MS and I was a woman. If I didn’t have any contra-indications to HRT I wouldn’t hesitate in starting HRT. HRT is anti-ageing, it may modify the course of MS and it will counteract the worsening MS symptoms associated with the menopause mentioned in study 2 below. 


As I am not a woman, what would you do?

Common contraindications to HRT:
  1. Pregnancy
  2. Undiagnosed abnormal vaginal bleeding
  3. Active thromboembolic disorder or acute-phase myocardial infarction
  4. Suspected or active breast or endometrial cancer
  5. Active liver disease with abnormal liver function tests
  6. Porphyria cutanea tarda


Study 1: CLIMB Study

Bove et al. Exploration of changes in disability after menopause in a longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort.Mult Scler. 2015. pii: 1352458515606211.

BACKGROUND: Onset of multiple sclerosis (MS) is typically in early adulthood. The impact, if any, of menopause on the MS course is unknown.


OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether menopause is associated with changes in MS severity in a longitudinal clinical cohort.

METHODS: Responses from an ongoing reproductive questionnaire deployed in all active female. CLIMB observational study participants with a diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or MS were analyzed when the response rate was 60%. Reproductive data were linked with clinical severity measures that were prospectively collected every six months, including our primary measure, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

RESULTS: Over one-half of the respondents (368 of 724 women) were post-menopausal. Median age at natural menopause was 51.5 years. In our primary analysis of 124 women who were followed longitudinally (mean duration 10.4 years) through their menopausal transition (natural or surgical), menopause represented an inflection point in their EDSS changes (difference of 0.076 units; 95% CI 0.010-0.14; p = 0.024). These findings were not explained by vitamin D levels, nor changes in treatment or smoking status over this period. There was no effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) exposure, but HRT use was low.

CONCLUSIONS: We observed a possible worsening of MS disability after menopause. Larger cohorts are required to assess any HRT effects.




Study 2: PatientsLikeMe


Bove et al. Patients report worse MS symptoms after menopause: findings from an online cohort. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015 Jan;4(1):18-24.


BACKGROUND: Many women with multiple sclerosis (MS) are postmenopausal, yet the impact of menopause on MS symptoms is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the patient-reported impact of menopause in a large online research platform, PatientsLikeMe (PLM).

METHODS: A detailed reproductive history survey was deployed to PLM members, and responses were linked to PLM׳s prospectively collected patient-reported severity score (MS Rating Scale, MSRS). The MSRS has previously shown good correlation with physician-derived EDSS scores.

RESULTS: Of the 513 respondents, 55% were postmenopausal; 54% of these reported induced menopause. Median age at natural menopause was 51. Surgical menopause occurred at an earlier age (p<0.001) and was associated with more hormone replacement therapy use (p=0.02) than natural menopause. Postmenopausal status, surgical menopause, and earlier age at menopause were all associated with worse MSRS scores (p≤0.01) in regressions adjusting for age, disease type and duration.

CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal patients in this study reported worse MS disease severity. Further, this study highlights a utility for online research platforms, which allow for rapid generation of hypotheses that then require validation in clinical settings.




Study 3: MS and menopause


Türk Börü et al. Effects of multiple sclerosis and medications on menopausal age. J Int Med Res. 2018 Mar;46(3):1249-1253.

Objectives: We aimed to determine whether multiple sclerosis (MS) and methylprednisolone and disease-modifying drugs have an effect on menopausal age. 


Methods: A total of 86 patients and 98 healthy subjects were included in this study. The natural menopausal age of the patients and healthy subjects were compared. The cumulative dosages of methylprednisolone, beta interferons (IFNβs), and glatiramer acetate were calculated. The effects of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), duration of the disease, and cumulative dosage of medications on menopausal age were evaluated. 

Results: The patients’ mean menopausal age was 45.3 ± 4.8 years and healthy subjects’ menopausal age was 46.8 ± 4.3 years, with no significant difference between the two groups. The cumulative dosage of methylprednisolone showed an effect on menopausal age. There was a significant inverse correlation between menopausal age and dosage of IFNβ-1b, while the disease duration and EDSS score showed no correlation with menopausal age. 

Conclusions: We conclude that menopausal age is not affected by MS. However, long-term methylprednisolone and IFNβ-1b treatments may change menopausal age in a dose-dependent manner.

Do we need to obey the NHS’s DMT stopping criteria?

I saw a patient yesterday who was forced to stop fingolimod as she had developed SPMS. She has been activity free on fingolimod for close to 5 years (relapse-free and no new T2 lesions) but had noticed a continued worsening of her gait. Her neurologist at St Elsewhere said that because her MS was now secondary progressive she had to stop taking fingolimod under the current NHS England guidelines. What happened next?



Four months after stopping fingolimod she had a major relapse with cerebellar ataxia (unsteady gait) and bladder problems. In addition, she has developed oscillopsia (jumpy vision) and intention tremor in her hands. As a result of these new disabilities, she is falling on an almost daily basis and has become housebound. I have little doubt that she has had rebound disease activity. My response is to put her back on fingolimod and hope she recovers some of the function she has lost. This is a tragedy. 

This patient is now the third patient we have seen in the last few months with rebound on stopping fingolimod. 

The danger of stopping drugs that target trafficking of lymphocytes into the CNS (natalizumab) and/or sequester lymphocytes in lymph nodes (fingolimod and other emerging S1P modulators) are well known. The study below describes this phenomenon of rebound that occurs on stopping fingolimod. 


I find it fascinating that when you remove the brakes on the immune system and allow the so-called ‘auto-reactive lymphocytes’ the opportunity to recirculate, they enter the CNS and cause disease activity that can be way and beyond what you would have expected, based on baseline levels of disease activity documented before patients started on these therapies. In the case of fingolimod, we have even seen rebound in patients with PPMS who had to stop fingolimod after the negative phase 3 INFORMS trial results. Isn’t it interesting that a DMT, such as fingolimod or for that matter natalizumab, can convert a non-relapsing phenotype into a relapsing phenotype? This is just further evidence that the MS disease classification based on the clinical course is flawed. MS is one and not two or three diseases.


Why we get rebound needs to be studied further. I have proposed the concept of the field hypothesis in the past. Whatever is causing MS is allowed to proliferate and spread in the brain and spinal cord when the immune system is stopped from doing what it is supposed to do; survey the CNS. When the brakes of the immune system are then removed and immune surveillance recommences the cells find the cause of MS and set-up multi-focal inflammatory lesions, i.e. rebound. If I was a betting man I suspect the best brains to study to find the virus that causes MS is the brains collected from people dying of MS on natalizumab or fingolimod who have not had immune reconstitution. The question that is often asked is why then do people on long-term fingolimod and natalizumab don’t develop any problems from the proliferation of whatever is causing MS? I don’t know, but maybe they do we just haven’t looked for it. Or we live unperturbed with the viral cause of MS in our brains provided we don’t mount an immune response to it. A similar thing happens in some people with hepatitis B who have a chronic persistent infection of the liver with no overt liver damage.


The bottom line is if you have MS that is well controlled on fingolimod you may want to consider any decision to simply stop taking it more carefully. I suspect it will be safer to transition onto another DMTs long before the action of fingolimod wears off (~3-4 weeks). The latter is really important for women on fingolimod who are planning to fall pregnant. This may be the place to use an IRT (immune reconstitution therapy). IRTs get the disease under control and are out of the system when the woman wants to fall pregnant. 

Another lesson here is that the NHS England stopping criteria are potentially dangerous for individual patients. We need to push back on their implementation or at least randomise these patients into a trial to generate the evidence that we need to convince NHSE to change the criteria. We have proposed the following salavage trials:

Hatcher et al. Rebound Syndrome in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis After Cessation of Fingolimod Treatment. JAMA Neurol. 2016 May 2. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0826.


IMPORTANCE: The appropriate sequencing of agents with strong immune system effects has become increasingly important. Transitions require careful balance between safety and protection against relapse. The cases presented herein highlight that rebound events after ceasing fingolimod treatment may happen even with short washout periods (4 weeks) and may perpetuate despite steroid treatment or the immediate use of fast-acting immune therapies, such as rituximab.


OBJECTIVE: To describe rebound syndrome in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) after cessation of fingolimod treatment.


DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical and demographic data were extracted from electronic medical records from the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center from January 2014 to December 2015. Magnetic resonance images were reviewed by MS neurologists (J.S.G., E.W., B.N., and E.C.H.). Rebound syndrome was defined as new severe neurological symptoms after ceasing fingolimod treatment, with the development of multiple new or enhancing lesions exceeding baseline activity. We reviewed the PubMed database from January 2010 to December 2015 for similar cases of severe disease reactivation after ceasing fingolimod treatment using search terms fingolimod and either rebound or reactivation. Participants were included if they stopped receiving fingolimod between January 2014 and December 2015. Five patients were identified who experienced rebound after ceasing fingolimod treatment.


EXPOSURES: Each patient received treatment with oral fingolimod for various durations.


MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Occurrence of rebound after ceasing fingolimod treatment.


RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 5 female patients presented in this case series was 35.2 (6.4) years. Of the 46 patients that stopped fingolimod treatment within the 2-year period, 5 (10.9%) experienced severe relapse 4 to 16 weeks after ceasing fingolimod treatment. Despite varying prior severity of relapsing-remitting course, all participants experienced unexpectedly severe clinical relapses accompanied by drastic increases in new or enhancing lesions seen on magnetic resonance imaging evidenced by a median (range) increase of 9 (0->30) new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and a median (range) of 9 (0->30) new T2 lesions. New lesion development persisted for 3 to 6 months despite treatment with corticosteroids (n = 3) and initiation of B-cell depleting therapy (n = 2). In addition, 11 patients were identified through literature review reported as having severe relapses consistent with a rebound syndrome and similar features to our 5 cases.


CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These cases provide evidence for a fingolimod rebound syndrome at a clinically relevant frequency, highlighting the need to determine the best methods for sequencing or discontinuing MS therapies. A large prospective registry or population-based study would be helpful to confirm this rebound phenomenon and to determine contributing factors, including immune biomarkers, that increase risk for this syndrome.


Alvarez-Gonzalez, et al. Cladribine to treat disease exacerbation after fingolimod discontinuation in progressive multiple sclerosis.

Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2017 May 17;4(7):506-511. doi: 10.1002/acn3.410. eCollection 2017 Jul.

ABSTRACT: Rebound disease following cessation of disease modifying treatment (DMT) has been reported in people with both relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis (pwRMS, pwPMS) questioning strict separation between these two phenotypes. While licensed DMT is available for pwRMS to counter rebound disease, no such option exists for pwPMS. We report on a pwPMS who developed rebound disease, with 45 Gadolinium-enhancing lesions on T1 weighted MRI brain, within 6 months after fingolimod 0.5 mg/day was stopped. Treatment with a short course of subcutaneous cladribine 60 mg led to effective suppression of inflammatory activity and partial recovery with no short-term safety issues or adverse events.

CoI: multiple

Should we call it catamenial or menstruation-related fatigue?

Somebody was ‘surprised that only one person’ added menstruation as a cause of fatigue on our fatigue survey. I am surprised too. Why?



The study below is in line with some of my own anecdotal observations in pwMS and has implications for all pwMS. In short higher body temperature is associated with worse fatigue.

Why would pwMS have a higher body temperature? They have MS lesions in the area of the brain that controls body temperature; this area is called the hypothalamus. This is unlikely as this problem would be greater on pwMS who have more advanced MS who tend to have a higher lesion load and are therefore more likely to have lesions in the hypothalamus. In this study pwMS with SPMS did not have a raised body temperature. In fact, hypothermia or low body temperature occurs in pwMS from lesions in the brain’s temperature control centre. I have only ever seen this rarely and all my patients had very advanced MS (bed-bound). 


I suspect the most likely explanation for the raised body temperature in pwMS is ongoing active inflammation in the brain. Inflammatory MS lesions produce chemical signals called cytokines that may explain the raised body temperature. Again, interleukin-1 (IL-1) and TNF-alpha are the main cytokine culprits when it comes to raising your body temperature. These cytokines bind to nerve cells in the hypothalamus and stimulate sickness behaviour, which includes fatigue, hypersomnolence (tiredness), a rise in body temperature and a change in your metabolism to conserve energy. If this is the case then pwMS could use their body temperature as a way to monitor if their MS is active or not? A corollary to this would be if that if you went on to a highly-effective DMT that shut down inflammation in the brain it should lower your body temperature. I have previously proposed that this would be an interesting study to do. Is there anyone up for doing this study?

Several of my clinical anecdotes are congruent with the results of the study below are: 

(1) I have several patients who take antipyretics (medication to lower your temperature) as a means of treating their fatigue. Some use paracetamol or acetaminophen and others ibuprofen; they swear by it. 

(2) Women with MS often complain of worse fatigue during menstruation; a period in their menstrual cycle associated with slightly higher body temperature. 

(3) Flu-like symptoms associated with interferon-beta therapy, which cause mild pyrexia, exacerbate fatigue. 

(4) Warm environments, exercise and infections all of which raise body temperature exacerbate fatigue.

(5) Despite the poor evidence-base, a large number of pwMS swear that cooling improves their fatigue. One of my patients has had a walk-in butchers fridge installed in her home. The fridge is large enough to take her wheelchair. She spends 4 to 5 half-hour sessions in the fridge every day; she claims this is the only way she can cope with her fatigue.

There are some small trials supporting these observations; i.e. that aspirin, a widely used anti-pyretic helps MS-related fatigue. Could the latter be due to the effect of aspirin on core body temperature?

A raised body temperature would cause fatigue, via a similar mechanism to Uhthoff’s phenomenon. In a small survey, we did on this blog back in 2014 approximately a third of respondents noticed an improvement in their fatigue levels with antipyretics. This is something you may want to explore with your neurologist.



Study 1

Sumowski & Leavitt Body temperature is elevated and linked to fatigue in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, even without heat exposure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Feb. pii: S0003-9993(14)00126-9.



OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether resting body temperature is elevated and linked to fatigue in RRMSer.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study investigating (a) differences in resting body temperature across RRMS, SPMS, and healthy groups, and (b) the relationship between body temperature and fatigue in RRMSers.

SETTING: Climate-controlled laboratory (∼22°C) within a non-profit medical rehabilitation research center.

PARTICIPANTS: Fifty RRMSers, 40 matched healthy controls, and 22 SPMSers.

INTERVENTION: None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Body temperature was measured with an aural infrared thermometer (normal body temperature for this thermometer is 36.75°C), and differences were compared across RRMS, SPMS, and healthy persons. RRMSers completed measures of general fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale; FSS), as well as physical and cognitive fatigue (Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; MFIS).

RESULTS: There was a large effect of group (p<.001, ηp2=.132) whereby body temperature was higher in RRMSers (37.04°C±0.27) relative to healthy controls (36.83 ± 0.33; p = .009) and SPMSers (36.75°C±0.39; p=.001). Warmer body temperature in RRMSer was associated with worse general fatigue (FSS; rp=.315, p=.028) and physical fatigue (pMFIS; rp=.318, p=.026), but not cognitive fatigue (cMIFS; rp=-.017, p=.909).

CONCLUSIONS: These are the first-ever demonstrations that body temperature is elevated endogenously in RRMSers and linked to worse fatigue. We discuss these findings in the context of failed treatments for fatigue in RRMS, including several failed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stimulants (modafinil). In contrast, our findings may help explain how RCTs of cooling garments and antipyretics (aspirin) have effectively reduced MS fatigue, and encourage further research on cooling/antipyretic treatments of fatigue in RRMS.


Study 2

Leavitt et al. Aspirin is an effective pretreatment for exercise in multiple sclerosis: A double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial. Mult Scler. 2018 Oct;24(11):1511-1513.

Exercise benefits multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, but exercise-induced overheating is a deterrent for many. We conducted a double-blind crossover-design placebo-controlled pilot of aspirin to increase time-to-exhaustion (TTE) and reduce exercise-induced body temperature increase. A total of 12 patients participated. At enrollment, 8 of 12 reported heat sensitivity during exercise. After 650 mg of aspirin or placebo, participants performed lower body cycle ergometer exercise test. TTE increased after aspirin compared to placebo: t(11) = 2.405, p = 0.035 (Cohen’s d = 1.45). Body temperature increase after exercise with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was reduced by 56% in heat-sensitive patients, although limited power precluded statistical significance. Aspirin may represent an effective pretreatment for exercise in MS.


Study 3

Shaygannejad et al. Comparison of the effect of aspirin and amantadine for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, blinded, crossover study. Neurol Res. 2012 Nov;34(9):854-8.


OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and amantadine for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS: A 10-week, randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial conducted from October 2009 to September 2010. Fifty-two patients with MS presenting fatigue at 21 to 53 years of age were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups. The first group received amantadine (100 mg twice daily) for a total of 4 weeks. The second group received ASA (500 mg once daily) for four weeks. After a 2-week washout period, they crossed over to the alternative treatment for 4 weeks. Patients were rated at baseline and the end of each phase with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS).

RESULTS: ASA appeared to be equivalent in efficacy and safety to amantadine. A significant decrease in FSS occurred in both groups. Of the 26 patients treated with amantadine, the mean (SD) of FSS decreased from 4·8 (1·4) to 4·0 (1·4) (P<0·001). In the 26 patients treated with ASA, the mean (SD) of FSS decreased from 4·6 (1·4) to 3·5 (1·5) (P<0·001).

DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that both ASA and amantadine significantly reduce MS-related fatigue. Both ASA and amantadine have previously been shown to reduce fatigue, and we postulate that treatment with ASA and amantadine may have similar benefits.

Prof G what causes MS-related fatigue?

MS-related fatigue is complex, but I will try and keep it simple.



Fatigue is one of the most disabling symptoms pwMS suffer from. In over 50% of pwMS fatigue is the one symptom they would like to get rid of most. MS-related fatigue has several underlying mechanisms. For a short discussion on the major mechanisms…….


(1) Inflammation in the brain causes fatigue. This is due to inflammatory mediators or cytokines, in particular, interleukin-1 (IL-1) and TNF-alpha, which trigger sickness behaviour. Sickness behaviour is the behavioural response we have to inflammation, which forces us to rest and sleep so that our body can recover. This is what happens to you when you get a viral infection; in fact many of the pwMS I look after describe their fatigue as being similar to the fatigue they experience when they get flu. Sickness behaviour from an evolutionary perspective is well conserved and occurs in most animals. This type of fatigue needs to be managed by switching off ongoing inflammation in the brain. This is why so many pwMS who go onto highly-effective DMTs comeback saying ‘I feel so much better, my fatigue and/or brain fog has cleared’. Do you relate to this? This is why recent onset fatigue that can’t be explained by other factors (see below) may indicate MS disease activity. At present fatigue on its own does not constitute a relapse, but there are some of us who would disagree if we find subclinical/MRI or biomarker (neurofilament) evidence of a relapse.

(2) Another cause of fatigue is exercise related conduction block. This is when pwMS notice their legs getting weaker with exercise. We think this is due to demyelinated, or remyelinated axons, failing to conduct electrical impulses when they become exhausted. Exercise-induced fatigue is probably the same as temperature-related fatigue; a rise in body temperature also causes vulnerable axons to block and stop conducting. To deal with this type of fatigue we need therapies to promote remyelination and to increase conduction. These types of fatigue are treated by rest, cooling and possibly drugs such as fampridine that improve conduction. At the heart of this type of fatigue is localised EF (energy failure).

(3) The other cause of fatigue is neural plasticity. When the brain is damaged by MS other areas are co-opted to help take over, or supplement, the function of the damaged area. In other words, it takes more brain power to complete the same task that normal people do. This type of fatigue usually manifests as mental fatigue and is why pwMS have difficulty concentrating for prolonged periods of time. At present we have no specific treatment for this type of fatigue, but some patients find amantadine and modafinil helpful. In short, preventing the loss of brain power, or damage, in the first place should prevent this type of fatigue.

(4) Fatigue can also be related to so-called co-morbidities, or other diseases, that are related to MS. The big co-morbidities that cause fatigue that need to be screened for are:

  • Infection; we all get tired when we have infections; it triggers sickness behaviour 
  • An underactive thyroid gland or hypothyroidism; this is commoner in pwMS 
  • Poor sleep hygiene and/or sleep disorders; if you are not sleeping well you feel tired in the morning 
  • Obesity; when you are overweight it takes more energy to perform physical tasks 
  • Depression and anxiety; fatigue is a common symptom of depression and anxiety 
  • Side effects of drugs; in particular drugs that cause sedation and from DMTs. Anticholinergics and anti-spasticity drugs are sedating and blunt cognition and may worsen MS-related fatigue. Specific side effects, for example, the flu-like side effects from interferon-beta may make fatigue worse. 
  • Deconditioning; deconditioning is simply the term we use for being unfit. If you are unfit, performing a demanding physical task makes you tired. Deconditioning is treated with exercise, which paradoxically can reduce fatigue. 
  • Poor nutrition; some pwMS are anorexic and eat very poorly and hence have little energy as a result of this. Although this is quite rare I look after a few pwMS with this problem. Similarly, overnutrition may have the same effect. Some of the hormones your gut produce cause you to feel tired and want to sleep; i.e. the so-called siesta effect. Reducing the size of your meals and changing your eating behaviour may improve post-prandial (after eating fatigue). I have a few patients who avoid eating lunch for this reason. 

It is apparent from this discussion that fatigue in MS is more complex than you realise and needs a systematic approach to be treated and managed correctly. So be careful, or at least wary, when your neurologist simply wants to reach for the prescription pad to get you out of the consultation room. Like other MS-related problems, a holistic and systematic approach is needed to manage and treat MS-related fatigue correctly.


The following is a summary of the results of an old blog survey on the causes of fatigue.

CoI: multiple

Is there a place for watchful waiting in the management of MS?

Yesterday in response to my blog post on ‘slaying the Gambler’s dilemma‘ somebody asked ‘Is there really a place for watchful waiting in the modern management of MS?’.


Yes, there is.

Not all patients have active MS, i.e. relapses within the last 2 years and/or new or enhancing lesions on MRI in the preceding 12 months, and therefore would not be eligible for DMTs under NHS England Guidelines. The same applies for people who have progressive or more advanced MS; we see these patients in the hope of being able to offer them a treatment in the future. Rather than discharge these patients they need to be followed and monitored. This is called watchful waiting.


The following systematic review in the Cochrane library defines and reviews this treatment approach, albeit for other diseases. 

Please note “Watchful waiting” is defined as an alternative approach in the medical management of certain diseases. Interestingly the authors’ equate “watchful waiting” with “active surveillance” and therein lies the rub. The problem with a lot of neurologists is that when it comes to MS “watchful waiting”  is a passive, rather than an active, process. Active surveillance means interrogating the patient at fixed time points for MS disease activity and for this to happen pwMS will need to have MRI scans and systematic visits. At Barts-MS this happens annually. The annual visit should be supplemented with unscheduled visits if the pwMS has new complaints or self-monitoring raises concerns.

The conclusions of this review are telling:


….. the process of making the decision to choose watchful waiting is complex. Through the process patients and their significant others experience an array of emotions that often lead to uncertainty and anxiety. Once the decision is made patients must cope with the knowledge that they have a troubling diagnosis and make the necessary adjustments. An empathic, reassuring relationship with a healthcare practitioner eases the burden of this process. Healthcare providers need to recognize that not all patients are “at peace” with the decision of choosing watchful waiting. Uncertainty and fear may intensify during this time as well as feelings of stress and anxiety. Patients and their significant others often attempt to adapt in the best way they know how but the effectiveness of their coping strategies needs to be assessed. In addition, healthcare providers need to also be aware that with the increased anxiety and stress associated with watchful waiting, patients’ understanding of healthcare information and the ability to ask questions may be diminished. Both providers and patients benefit from open discussions related to the many aspects of uncertainty and fear related to making and living with the decision. Employing a shared decision-making model with regard to the management of the array of issues that comes from both making the decision and living with it is recommended. It appears that patients are very sensitive to recognizing when the care they are receiving lacks empathy. Communication that is open, empathic, and non-judgmental is essential. A willingness to discuss sensitive issues such as sexual function needs to be conveyed. Lastly, providers and their staff need to remain attentive to the importance of articulating aspects of the situation that are hopeful and optimistic as many patients, during their visits, take their cues regarding their health status from non-verbal and verbal interactions …..

Rittenmeyer et al. The experience of adults who choose watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):174-255. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2270.

BACKGROUND: “Watchful waiting” or “active surveillance” is an alternative approach in the medical management of certain diseases. Most often considered appropriate as an approach to treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, it is also found in the literature in breast cancer surveillance, urinary lithiasis, lymphocytic leukemia, depression and small renal tumors.


OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to: Identify and synthesize the best available international evidence on the experience of adults who choose watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment. To this end the questions addressed in this review were: 
1. How do patients who have chosen watchful waiting or active surveillance describe the process of coming to the decision?
2. What were the factors that influenced their decision to choose?
3. How do patients who have chosen watchful waiting or active surveillance describe the experience?

RESULTS: A total of 16 studies, critically appraised by two independent reviewers and deemed to be of high quality, were included in the final review. One study was excluded after appraisal. One hundred and fifty-five findings from the 16 studies were extracted into 10 categories and then into three synthesized findings. The synthesized findings explicated:


CONCLUSIONS: The synthesized findings of the review conclude that the process of making the decision to choose watchful waiting is complex. Through the process patients and their significant others experience an array of emotions that often lead to uncertainty and anxiety. Once the decision is made patients must cope with the knowledge that they have a troubling diagnosis and make the necessary adjustments. An empathic, reassuring relationship with a healthcare practitioner eases the burden of this process. Healthcare providers need to recognize that not all patients are “at peace” with the decision of choosing watchful waiting. Uncertainty and fear may intensify during this time as well as feelings of stress and anxiety. Patients and their significant others often attempt to adapt in the best way they know how but the effectiveness of their coping strategies needs to be assessed. In addition, healthcare providers need to also be aware that with the increased anxiety and stress associated with watchful waiting, patients’ understanding of healthcare information and the ability to ask questions may be diminished. Both providers and patients benefit from open discussions related to the many aspects of uncertainty and fear related to making and living with the decision. Employing a shared decision-making model with regard to the management of the array of issues that comes from both making the decision and living with it is recommended. It appears that patients are very sensitive to recognizing when the care they are receiving lacks empathy. Communication that is open, empathic, and non-judgmental is essential. A willingness to discuss sensitive issues such as sexual function needs to be conveyed. Lastly, providers and their staff need to remain attentive to the importance of articulating aspects of the situation that are hopeful and optimistic as many patients, during their visits, take their cues regarding their health status from non-verbal and verbal interactions. Future studies should investigate.


CoI: I am a neurologist who looks after pwMS

Is it time to slay the Gambler’s dilemma?

At a teaching session last week I presented several slides showing that at a population level rapid escalation (vertical switching) or flipping the pyramid (high-efficacy first-line) are really the only two treatment options we should be using to maximise life-long brain health of people with MS (pwMS). I also have little doubt that flipping the pyramid will also prove to be better than rapid escalation; there is some early data to support this and at least two clinical trials ongoing to address this.


The study below shows vertical switching  (low/moderate to high efficacy switching) is superior to horizontal switching (between low/moderate efficacy DMTs). 

The issue we debated on the teaching course is that as neurologists we don’t treat populations, but individuals with MS and hence patient choice should always trump data like this. I explained to the audience that they must be careful not to share their patient’s biases, i.e. the gambler’s dilemma.  A gambler never goes into a casino to lose money. However, the gambler knows that on average he/she will lose money. The cognitive bias here is that they will be the lucky one that will win. Someone with MS is never going to have bad MS, they are always going to be the one that ends up with no problems in the future, therefore, they don’t need more effective treatments. This is wrong. Given sufficient time MS causes disability in the majority of people with MS. Time is brain and brain lost is never regained. Therefore the practices of watchful waiting (a British medical tradition) and slow stepwise escalation comes at a cost to individuals and populations of individuals with MS. 


Can I suggest to counteract these cognitive biases you play a little game and imagine how you would treat yourself if you had MS? 

The treatment targets in MS have evolved from simply reducing the frequency of relapses (NEDA-0), to becoming relapse-free (NEDA-1) to having no measurable disease activity (NEDA-3), to preventing end-organ damage (NEDA4 and NEDA-5) to finally maximising brain health to allow our patients with MS so that they can age normally. In the future, we will want to cure our patients with MS before any meaningful damage is done to their brains and spinal cords, and we will want to prevent MS in people at risk of getting MS. To achieve these latter targets we need a much more proactive treatment approach and we also need to manage MS holistically, which includes actively managing comorbidities and focusing on wellness and lifestyle factors.

Is it time to slay the Gambler’s dilemma? 


You can download these slides via the new ProfG’s SlideShare site that I now control myself. Please feel free to use the slides. 

Chalmer et al. Treatment escalation leads to fewer relapses compared with switching to another moderately effective therapy. J Neurol. 2018 Dec 4. doi: 10.1007/s00415-018-9126-y.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple sclerosis who experience disease breakthrough often switch disease-modifying therapy (DMT).


OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment effectiveness of switch to highly effective DMT (heDMT) with switch to moderately effective DMT (meDMT) for patients who switch due to disease breakthrough defined as at least one relapse within 12 months of their treatment switch.

METHODS: We retrieved data from The Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry on all relapsing-remitting MS patients with expanded disability status scale (EDSS) less than 6 who experienced disease breakthrough. We used propensity score matching to compare annualized relapse rates (ARRs), time to first confirmed relapse, time to first confirmed EDSS worsening and time to first confirmed EDSS improvement.

RESULTS: Each matched group comprised 404 patients. Median follow-up time was 3.2 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.7-5.8]. ARRs were 0.22 (0.19-0.27) with heDMT and 0.32 (IQR 0.28-0.37) with meDMT; relapse rate ratio was 0.70 (95% CI 0.56-0.86; p = 0.001). Escalation to heDMT reduced the hazard of reaching a first relapse (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; p < 0.001). We found no evidence of delayed disability worsening (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62-1.10; p = 0.20) and weak evidence of disability improvement (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.00-1.76; p = 0.05) with heDMT.

CONCLUSION: Switching to heDMT is associated with reduced ARR and delay of first relapse compared with switching to meDMT. Patients on DMT who experience relapses should escalate therapy to heDMT.

CoI: multiple

Prof G what is therapeutic lag?

Worsening disability in someone with progressive MS over the next 2 years is primed by inflammation from years ago. Suppressing inflammation today, therefore, will have little, or potentially no, impact on worsening disability over the next one to two years as the damage priming progression over this time has already occurred. Therefore, all anti-inflammatory therapies will have a lag in terms of showing a treatment response in progressive MS.


The PPMS Barcelona study of interferon-beta-1b treatment was negative after 2-years of treatment; there was no difference between pwPPMS who had been treated with IFNbeta or placebo. The investigators’ concluded that interferon-beta was ineffective in PPMS. However, when these patients were reassessed 5-years after the end of the study there was a clear benefit (clinical and MRI) in favour of the interferon treatment. Based on this, and other observations, we have proposed that in progressive MS there is a lag between the onset of action of anti-inflammatory medication and its impact on the biology that underpins progression.

The impact of anti-inflammatory medications in progressive MS takes several years to play out in the system that is already in the ‘clinically apparent’ progressive phase. Please note the biology that results in progressive MS is there from the start. The only reason you don’t see progression clinically early on is that several compensatory mechanisms allow you to continue functioning relatively normally. Once these compensatory mechanisms have been shredded gradual worsening becomes apparent.

In progressive MS, worsening disability over the next 1-2 years is primed by focal inflammatory events that have occurred in the past. Therefore, suppressing inflammation today in progressive MS will have not have an impact over the next 1-2-years as the damage that has primed progression has already occurred. This is what I call therapeutic lag and it occurs with all anti-inflammatory therapies. Importantly the more disabled you are the longer the lag. Why? The more disabled you are the less reserve you have and therefore you are unable to compensate nor recover function.

This diagram below illustrates the concept of the therapeutic lag. The natalizumab SPMS trials (ASCEND) was only 2-years in duration, which explains why it was negative. However, at 3-years the trial became positive because of lag.

Neurological systems to be affected first by progressive MS are those that have the longest, or most, wiring and hence more likely to be hit by multiple lesions. This is why the motor system to the legs, bladder and the cerebellar, or balance, system are typically affected first when clinically-apparent progressive disease starts. The other systems (vision, motor system to the upper arms and face, sensory systems, cognition (poorly tested), etc.) tend to be affected later by ‘overt’ progressive disease. I say overt because there is now good MRI evidence (brain volume loss, black holes, slowly expanding lesions (SELs)) that the progressive component of MS is present from the start of the disease. The only reason you don’t see progression clinically is that your nervous system compensates for the damage. However, once the compensatory systems fail in a particular pathway progressive MS ensues. What this means is that we may have different windows of opportunity for treatments to impact on the different functional systems. In other words there are multiple windows of therapeutic opportunity to act in MS and we should, therefore, shift our focus in progressive MS away from the systems already in the clinically progressive phase to those systems that still have reserve capacity and not yet in the clinically progressive phase, for example, arm and hand function (#ThinkHand).

In the natalizumab SPMS or ASCEND study, this is exactly what happened. The trial was positive on upper limb function (9-hole peg test) at 2-years, but not on the EDSS and the 25-foot timed walk, which are driven by lower limb function. If the ASCEND trial has been event-driven or was done for 3-years it would have been positive and we would have almost certainly had natalizumab licensed for SPMS. This is why I am so keen for Biogen to the ASCEND-2 study and extend it into wheelchair users. So far I have been unsuccessful in covincing them to do the study. Can you help?



The implications of the therapeutic lag and asynchronous progressive MS hypotheses is that we have been designing, and doing, trials in progressive MS incorrectly. More importantly, these concepts challenge the so-called therapeutic window concept. It also means that instead of writing someone off with progressive MS because their so-called therapeutic window has closed is that we can now focus on the other therapeutic windows that are still open.

It has never made sense to me not being able to prescribe a DMT to pwMS simply because they needed a wheelchair as a result of a devastating spinal cord relapse. What about their upper limb, cognitive and cerebellar function? Do we simply write these systems off because one, or two, systems are severely damaged? I personally think the therapeutic lag and asynchronous progressive MS hypotheses gives pwMS hope; hope for treatments that can at least preserve the function of pathways with reserve capacity, whilst we work on remyelination and neurorestorative strategies. This will at least buy us time and spread hope!



Tur et al. Interferon Beta-1b for the Treatment of Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Five-Year Clinical Trial Follow-up. Arch Neurol. 2011 Nov;68(11):1421-7.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate, during the 5-year period without treatment after termination of a 2-year clinical trial of interferon beta-1b for the treatment of PPMS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: After 5 years without treatment, the EDSS and MSFC measures were scored for 63 and 59 pwMS, respectively. Neuropsychological and magnetic resonance imaging assessments were performed for 59 and 50 pwMS, respectively.

EDSS = Expanded Disability Status Scale
MSFC = MS Functional Composite ( a composite 3 tests the PASAT, 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-ft walk)
9-Hole Peg Test = test of upper limb function
Word List Generation Test = cognitive task

RESULTS: After 5 years without treatment, the interferon beta-1b group had better 9-Hole Peg Test (p=0.02) and Word List Generation Test (p<0.001) scores, and MRI measures in the normal-appearing white matter were significantly better. During the entire study period (from trial baseline to assessment at 5 years without treatment), the placebo group showed a greater decrease in brain volume (p=0.004). The in-trial increase of lesions correlated with the worsening of the EDSS score during the 5-year period without treatment (p =0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: Modest but beneficial effects of interferon beta-1b on clinical variables and brain atrophy development were observed 5 years after trial termination. Moreover, in-trial lesion activity correlated with EDSS progression after trial termination. Therefore, we provide evidence to consider immunomodulation as a sensible approach to treat primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

CoI: multiple

Explaining why you get worse despite being NEDA

In my MS clinic, I have to continually work on a narrative to explain to pwMS why they are getting worse despite having no evidence of disease activity. The following is a draft of a paper I am working on. Does it make sense? Is it too complicated? Does it need pictures? Thanks. 


Disease worsening or disability progression in MS can be explained under 4 headings:

1. SS (scissors and stripper): The acute focal inflammatory lesion acts like molecular scissors and strippers, cutting axons and stripping myelin off axons. The cut and naked axons are blocked from conducting signals and result in a neurological deficit. The neurological deficit from this acute conduction block will vary depending on the pathway affected, for example, if the lesions affect the optic nerves it will cause loss of vision. The way to prevent the SS from causing conduction block is to prevent new lesions from forming.

2. EF (energy failure): The demyelinated axons may recover function by a process called axonal plasticity or remyelination. Axonal plasticity is the process by which the neuron inserts new ion channels into the demyelinated axonal segments and restores conduction. Remyelination may also occur, but the new myelin is never as thick and as efficient as the old myelin and is susceptible to intermittent failure. These demyelinated and thinly remyelinated sections of axons are susceptible to temperature and fatigue. If the temperature rises these sections block and if the axons are used too much, for example with exercise, they run out of energy and also block. Sometimes the type of ion channel that is inserted into the axons fire spontaneously can cause intermittent symptoms, for example, pins and needles, pain, neuralgia and muscle spasms. As these ion channels are sodium channels it explains why these intermittent symptoms respond to drugs that block sodium channels, for example, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin and lamotrigine.

Another process that helps with recovery is that the surviving axons form sprouts to reconnect disconnected pathways and create new synapses, which are the connections between nerve fibres. All these processes increase the energy requirements of the axon, which makes it vulnerable to die-off later. At the same time the ‘MS lesion’ remains inflamed and some of the chemicals produced as part of the inflammation poison the mitochondria, which are energy factories of the axons. A further reduction in energy production puts further stress on the system. As a result of these processes, there is a delayed dying off of axons that takes place over months to years after the initial MS lesion has formed. This delayed dying off of axons explains why despite effective treatments stopping new MS lesions from forming some people with MS still notice a slow deterioration in their functioning.

3. SB (slow burn): Some MS lesions never recover and become slowly expanding lesions or SELs. SELs have a rim of hot microglia at their edges and continue to swallow up the myelin and axons of the surrounding ‘normal-appearing’ tissue. These lesions don’t have much acute inflammation left in them, i.e. there are very little T and B cells in these lesions. SELs continue to expand over years to decades and are responsible for the slow accumulation of damage over many years. SELs can be seen on MRI; they typically cause black holes on so-called T1-weighted MR images and have a dark rim of iron around them when viewed with special MR sequences (susceptibility imaging). The iron rim is a marker of these so-called ‘hot microglia’.

At present we have no idea what causes some MS lesions to regress and recover and for others to expand and become SELs. What we do know is that our standard anti-inflammatory DMTs have very little or no effect on SELs once they have developed. It is important to realise that SELs are found throughout the course of MS and are even seen in people with a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) or asymptomatic MS. In other words, the so-called ‘progressive MS pathology’ is found very early in the MS disease course. We do know that the number and size of the SELs increase with disease duration, i.e. the more MS lesions that develop the more SELs will be formed. Another important observation that has recently emerged is that a single strategically located SEL can cause an extraordinary amount of damage; for example, a single SEL in the so-called pyramidal tract or motor pathway can cause progressive weakness down one side of the body. I have a few patients like this and it is very disheartening when their weakness fails to respond to standard anti-inflammatory therapies.

An interesting debate is whether or not the ‘hot microglial’ response is abnormal, i.e. pathological, or is occurring in response to something in the surrounding tissue. I support the latter view and hypothesise that there is something in the surrounding tissue that is activating the microglia and they are just doing their job and trying to clear-up the inciting agent. Others have suggested these microglia are responding to the back-end, or Fc-end, of antibodies and activated complement components as a result of these antibodies reacting with their target or in a non-specific manner. Other hypotheses include viruses, e.g. EBV and HERVs, are driving the expansion of these lesions. The way to test these two competing hypotheses is to use drugs that switch off or suppress microglia. If the ‘hot microglia’ are the problem these drugs will work and stop SELs getting bigger. If the microglia are just doing their ‘job’ these agents are unlikely to work. It is also important to remind you that myelin debris inhibits remyelination so these microglia may be needed to help with the repair. The problem is that without being able to switch off the abnormal processes that are causing SELs to enlarge trying to stimulate repair mechanisms may be futile.

Another factor that can’t be ignored is recurrent infections, which sometimes affects a lot of people with advanced MS. Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the biggest problem. This is why we take UTIs so seriously. Every time you get an infection it causes your immune system to produce cytokines, or inflammatory messengers, that travel to the brain and boosts the activity of the microglia. The hot microglia then exacerbate the damage that MS is doing to your brain and spinal cord. This is why many of you tolerate infections so poorly and often don’t recover back to baseline after a severe infection. There is a lot we can do to reduce recurrent bladder infections. For example, the judicious use of intermittent self-catheterisation, drinking lots of liquids to flush the bladder, using urinary antiseptics to suppress the growth of bacteria in the bladder and screening for asymptomatic UTIs using self-monitoring home dipsticking and prompt treatment.

The upshot of ‘slow burn’ is that we need additional therapies to add on top of DMTs that stop new lesions, and in particular chronic expanding or SELs, from forming. These treatments may be drugs to purge the CNS of antibody-producing B cells and plasma cells, drugs that inhibit complement activation and/or the activation of Fc receptors on microglia, anti-virals that target EBV and HERVs, and/or drugs that inhibit activated microglia. In other words, there are many therapeutic targets that still need to be explored as add-on therapies in MS.

4. PA (premature ageing): Most of you are aware of the effects of ageing on the nervous system. The brain and spinal cord were never designed by evolution to last longer than about 35 years. It is only relatively recently that as a species we have extended our lifespans. Once you go beyond approximately 35 years of age there is a gradual loss of nerve cells and axons. This explains why as you get older you notice the effects of ageing; reduced vision, loss of hearing, poor balance and sadly age-related cognitive impairment. In short, life is an age-dependent neurodegenerative disease. If we all live long enough we will all develop cognitive impairment. What protects us from age-related changes is so-called brain reserve capacity, i.e. the size of the brain and spinal cord, and cognitive reserve, which relates to education level and environmental enrichment (social capital, adult learning, cognitive exercises, etc.). We know that MS reduces both brain and cognitive reserve and as a result people with MS experience the impact of ageing much earlier. I refer to this as premature ageing. Can we do anything about this? Yes, we can. We know from studies in the general population there are many things that you can do to maximise your brain and cognitive reserve. This is called Brain Health and involves lifestyle factors such as exercise, diet, sleep and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. It is also important to be screened for comorbidities or other diseases and have them treated; these include smoking, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and abnormal lipids. As for diet, there have not been any that have been studied specifically in MS. However, data from animal and other studies indicate that calorie restricted, intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets have the most promise with regard to brain health. However, we need more evidence of their beneficial effects before promoting these to pwMS. 




Ageing is also a biological process and as we decode the molecular programmes that cause ageing we may be able to develop treatments that reverse ageing. An example of this is metformin, a drug for treating diabetes has recently been shown to reprogramme oligodendrocyte precursors in older animals to behave as if they were young cells and become more efficient at remyelinating axons. I envisage in the future using anti-ageing drugs as add-on therapies to treat MS.

Many of you will be tired of hearing me speak about Brain Health, but if we want to maximise the outcome for pwMS we need to treat MS holistically and that means living a Brain Healthy life and for us to offer you a brain health and wellness programme. The big challenge is getting the NHS to fund this initiative. When I suggested to my previous manager that I wanted to start an MS Wellness clinic he laughed; C’est la vie!

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%