Search

Background: Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a higher risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) and disease progression. However, the efficacy of vitamin D 3 as an adjuvant therapy for MS remains a controversial topic., Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of adjunct high-dose vitamin D 3 on clinical and radiological outcomes., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for trials published until December 18th, 2022. Authors independently selected randomized controlled trials involving patients with MS, with an intervention group receiving high dose (≥ 1000 IU/day) cholecalciferol and reporting clinical or radiological outcomes. Authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using a standardized, pilot-tested form. The meta-analysis was conducted using RStudio for EDSS at the last follow-up, ARR, and new T2 lesion count., Results: We included 9 studies with 867 participants. No significant reduction of EDSS (MD = 0.02, CI 95 % [-0.37; 0.41], p = 0.91), ARR (MD -0.03, CI 95 % [-0.08; 0.02], p = 0.26), or new T2 lesions (MD -0.59, CI 95 % [-1.24;0.07], p = 0.08) was observed at 6-24 months. We found no evidence of publication bias., Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis strengthen current evidence that vitamin D 3 supplementation has no significant impact on clinical outcomes in patients with MS. However, the non-significant reduction of new T2 lesions could precede long-term clinical benefits and should be validated in additional studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Samira Luisa Apostolos Pereira reports a relationship with Biogen, Roche, Merck, Novartis, and EMS. that includes: funding grants. Tarso Adoni reports a relationship with Biogen, Roche, Merck, Novartis, and EMS. that includes:. Guilherme Diogo Silva reports a relationship with Biogen, Roche, Merck, Novartis, and EMS. that includes:. Dagoberto Callegaro reports a relationship with Biogen, Roche, Merck, Novartis, and EMS. that includes:., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors had regular visits and event funding from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, EMS, Alexion, and Horizon.

Background: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis remains a problem despite the well-validated McDonald 2017. For proper evaluation of errors in the diagnostic process that lead to misdiagnosis, it is adequate to incorporate patients who are already under regular follow-up at reference centers of demyelinating diseases., Objectives: To evaluate multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in patients who are on follow-up at a reference center of demyelinating diseases in Brazil., Methods: We designed an observational study including patients in regular follow-up, who were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at our specialized outpatient clinic in the Hospital of Clinics in the University of Sao Paulo, from 1996 to 2021, and were reassessed for misdiagnosis in 2022. We evaluated demographic information, clinical profile, and complementary exams and classified participants as "established multiple sclerosis," "non-multiple sclerosis, diagnosed," and "non-multiple sclerosis, undiagnosed." Failures in the diagnostic process were assessed by the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research tool., Results: A total of 201 patients were included. After analysis, 191/201 (95.02%) participants were confirmed as "established multiple sclerosis," 5/201 (2.49%) were defined as "non-multiple sclerosis, diagnosed," and 5/201 (2.49%) were defined as "non-multiple sclerosis, undiagnosed.", Conclusions: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis persists in reference centers, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation of clinical findings to prevent errors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors Guilherme Diogo Silva, Mateus Boaventura de Oliveira, Tarso Adoni, Larissa Silva Teixeira, Samira Luisa Apóstolos Pereira, and Dagoberto Callegaro receive regular visits of Biogen, Novartis, EMS, and Roche pharmaceutical companies.

Background: The optimal treatment strategy of multiple sclerosis (MS) is a matter of debate. The classical approach is the escalating (ESC) strategy, which consists of starting with low- to moderate-efficacy disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and upscale to high-efficacy DMDs when noting some evidence of active disease. Another approach, the early intensive (EIT) strategy, is starting with high-efficiency DMDs as first-line therapy. Our goal was to compare effectiveness, safety, and cost of ESC and EIT strategies., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS until September 2022, for studies comparing EIT and ESC strategies in adult participants with relapsing-remitting MS and a minimum follow-up of 5 years. We examined the Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS), the proportion of severe adverse events, and cost in a 5-year period. Random-effects meta-analysis summarized the efficacy and safety and an EDSS-based Markov model estimated the cost., Results: Seven studies with 3,467 participants showed a 30% reduction in EDSS worsening in 5 years (RR 0.7; [0.59-0.83]; p < 0.001) in the EIT group vs in the ESC group. Two studies with 1,118 participants suggested a similar safety profile for these strategies (RR 1.92; [0.38-9.72]; p = 0.4324). EIT with natalizumab in extended interval dosing, rituximab, alemtuzumab, and cladribine demonstrated cost-effectiveness in our model., Discussion: EIT presents higher efficacy in preventing disability progression, a similar safety profile, and can be cost-effective within a 5-year timeline., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors Guilherme Diogo Silva, Samira Luisa Apóstolos-Pereira, and Dagoberto Callegaro receive regular visits and grants from Biogen, Roche, Merck, Novartis, and EMS., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Numerous studies addressed the prevalence of multiple sclerosis, but prevalence studies of NMOSD and, particularly, MOGAD are scarce. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of NMOSD and MOGAD in the city of São Paulo, based on the known prevalence of MS., Methods: In this observational study, we determined the total number of patients with central nervous system demyelinating disease on regular follow-up in a university referral center in São Paulo, from May 2019 to May 2021 according to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), NMOSD and MOGAD using the current diagnostic criteria for these diseases. We used the MS: NMOSD and MS: MOGAD ratios to estimate the ratio of these diseases in São Paulo, Brazil., Results: We identified 968 patients with MS, 133 patients with AQP4 positive NMOSD, and 28 patients with MOGAD. We found the MS: NMOSD ratio of 7,28 and the MS: MOGAD ratio of 34,57. We estimated a prevalence of 2,1 per 100,000 inhabitants for NMOSD and of 0,4 per 100,000 inhabitants for MOGAD., Conclusion: The prevalence of NMOSD is high in São Paulo, but the prevalence of MOGAD is low when compared with the prevalence found in most of the studies reported to date., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary angiitis of the central nervous system is a rare inflammatory vasculopathy and it is a difficult diagnosis to make because of its kaleidoscopic presentation and its multiple mimics, including multiple sclerosis., Case Presentation: A 21-year-old men presented a four-year history of progressive gait deterioration. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine showed hyperintense round-shaped lesions on T2 images, many with contrast enhancement, in supra/infratentorial and spinal segments. He received treatment for multiple sclerosis but presented clinical worsening, and follow-up neuroimaging showed persistent contrast enhancement lesions and a cerebellar hematoma. Brain biopsy was performed and demonstrated inflammatory infiltrations in blood vessels. The patient received 6 monthly schedules of 5 g methylprednisolone and 1 g cyclophosphamide with clinical stabilization., Discussion: Our patient presented a primary angiitis central nervous system according to the Birnbaum and Hellmann proposed criteria. This case reinforces the importance of advancing the differential diagnosis of patients that present red flags in brain neuroimaging., Conclusion: The presence of the micro/macrobleeds and persistent contrast enhancing lesions should raise the suspicion of vasculitis in the differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors Samira Luisa Apóstolos Pereira and Dagoberto Callegaro have participated in the production of presentations and material for Biogen and Novartis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Ocrelizumab and siponimod are the two on-label drugs used for progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (PMS). However, many patients with PMS do not have access to these high-efficacy disease-modifying drugs (DMDs). Off-label prescription of other high-efficacy DMDs (fingolimod, rituximab and natalizumab) may be a strategy to improve access to immunotherapy for these patients. We aim to compare on-label and off-label high-efficacy drugs for their effect on disability progression in PMS. In December 2021, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central and Scopus databases for randomized clinical trials involving patients with PMS. High-efficacy drugs were considered as intervention and placebos as comparison. The outcome contemplated was risk of Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS) progression at 2 years. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the relative risk of EDSS progression at 2 years compared with placebo in on-label and off-label drugs. We included five studies with 4526 patients. The median EDSS progression at 2 years in patients that received any immunotherapy was 30%, compared with 35% in placebo groups. Overall, the risk of bias of individual studies was low. Network analysis revealed overlapping confidence intervals in off-label drugs (CI95% 0.51-2.16) versus ocrelizumab (reference) and off-label drugs (CI 95% 0.53-1.96) versus siponimod (reference), suggesting similar efficacy. The same result was found even after excluding studies with the risk of publication bias. Off-label high efficacy immunotherapy in PMS has biological plausibility and presented similar effectiveness to on-label DMDs in this network meta-analysis. The use of fingolimod, rituximab or natalizumab may be a strategy that reduces costs and improves access to immunotherapy for patients with PMS., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) are the most common autoimmune diseases of the central nervous system (CNS). They present chronic relapsing courses that demand treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) to prevent inflammatory activity. Disease-modifying drugs lead to immunomodulation or immunosuppression through diverse mechanisms (e.g., shifting lymphocyte and cytokine profile, suppressing specific lymphocyte subpopulations). Thus, patients are more prone to infectious complications and associated worsening of disease., Objective: To present feasible strategies for mitigating the infection risk of MS and NMOSD treated patients., Methods: Targeted literature review concerning the management of infection risk with an emphasis on vaccination, therapy-specific measures, and particularities of the Brazilian endemic infectious diseases' scenario., Conclusion: We propose a vaccination schedule, infectious screening routine, and prophylactic measures based on the current scientific evidence. Awareness of emergent tropical diseases is necessary due to evidence of demyelinating events and possible parainfectious cases of MS and NMOSD., Competing Interests: Samira Luisa Pereira Apóstolos, Maria Fernanda Mendes, and Dagoberto Callegaro have participated in lectures and developed written educational materials for Biogen, Roche, Merck, and Novartis., (Academia Brasileira de Neurologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

The Scientific Department of Neuroimmunology of the Brazilian Academy of Neurology (DCNI/ABN) and Brazilian Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunological Diseases (BCTRIMS) provide recommendations in this document for vaccination of the population with demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) against infections in general and against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19. We emphasize the seriousness of the current situation in view of the spread of COVID-19 in our country. Therefore, reference guides on vaccination for clinicians, patients, and public health authorities are particularly important to prevent some infectious diseases. The DCNI/ABN and BCTRIMS recommend that patients with CNS demyelinating diseases (e.g., MS and NMOSD) be continually monitored for updates to their vaccination schedule, especially at the beginning or before a change in treatment with a disease modifying drug (DMD). It is also important to note that vaccines are safe, and physicians should encourage their use in all patients. Clearly, special care should be taken when live attenuated viruses are involved. Finally, it is important for physicians to verify which DMD the patient is receiving and when the last dose was taken, as each drug may affect the induction of immune response differently.

Background: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a potential threat to patients with autoimmune disorders, including multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Such patients are usually treated with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive agents, which may tamper with the organism's normal response to infections. Currently, no consensus has been reached on how to manage MS and NMOSD patients during the pandemic., Objective: To discuss strategies to manage those patients., Methods: We focus on how to 1) reduce COVID-19 infection risk, such as social distancing, telemedicine, and wider interval between laboratory testing/imaging; 2) manage relapses, such as avoiding treatment of mild relapse and using oral steroids; 3) manage disease-modifying therapies, such as preference for drugs associated with lower infection risk (interferons, glatiramer, teriflunomide, and natalizumab) and extended-interval dosing of natalizumab, when safe; 4) individualize the chosen MS induction-therapy (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, alemtuzumab, and cladribine); 5) manage NMOSD preventive therapies, including initial therapy selection and current treatment maintenance; 6) manage MS/NMOSD patients infected with COVID-19., Conclusions: In the future, real-world case series of MS/NMOSD patients infected with COVID-19 will help us define the best management strategies. For the time being, we rely on expert experience and guidance.

Background: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis remains a problem despite the well-validated McDonald 2017. For proper evaluation of errors in the diagnostic process that lead to misdiagnosis, it is adequate to incorporate patients who are already under regular follow-up at reference centers of demyelinating diseases. Objectives: To evaluate multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in patients who are on follow-up at a reference center of demyelinating diseases in Brazil. Methods: We designed an observational study including patients in regular follow-up, who were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at our specialized outpatient clinic in the Hospital of Clinics in the University of Sao Paulo, from 1996 to 2021, and were reassessed for misdiagnosis in 2022. We evaluated demographic information, clinical profile, and complementary exams and classified participants as "established multiple sclerosis," "non-multiple sclerosis, diagnosed," and "non-multiple sclerosis, undiagnosed." Failures in the diagnostic process were assessed by the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research tool. Results: A total of 201 patients were included. After analysis, 191/201 (95.02%) participants were confirmed as "established multiple sclerosis," 5/201 (2.49%) were defined as "non-multiple sclerosis, diagnosed," and 5/201 (2.49%) were defined as "non-multiple sclerosis, undiagnosed." Conclusions: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis persists in reference centers, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation of clinical findings to prevent errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retinal complications in patients with inflammatory optic neuritis (ON) are generally related to post-infectious neuroretinitis and are considered uncommon in autoimmune/demyelinating ON, whether isolated or caused by multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). More recently, however, cases with retinal complications have been reported in subjects positive for myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies. We report a 53-year-old woman presenting with severe bilateral ON associated with a focal area of paracentral acute middle maculopathy (PAMM) in one eye. Visual loss recovered remarkably after high-dose intravenous corticosteroid treatment and plasmapheresis, but the PAMM lesion remained visible on both optical coherence tomography and angiography as an ischaemic lesion affecting the middle layers of the retina. The report emphasises the possible occurrence of retinal vascular complications in MOG–related optic neuritis, an important addition to the diagnosis of, and possible differentiation from, MS–related or NMOSD–related ON. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vitamin D 3 supplementation to evaluate its efficacy on multiple sclerosis related outcomes. • Vitamin D 3 as an add-on therapy to low-efficacy disease modifying drugs does not confer clinical or radiological benefits on timeframes lasting up to 24 months. • Additional studies are needed to explore outcomes over longer follow-up times. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a higher risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) and disease progression. However, the efficacy of vitamin D 3 as an adjuvant therapy for MS remains a controversial topic. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of adjunct high-dose vitamin D 3 on clinical and radiological outcomes. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for trials published until December 18th, 2022. Authors independently selected randomized controlled trials involving patients with MS, with an intervention group receiving high dose (≥ 1000 IU/day) cholecalciferol and reporting clinical or radiological outcomes. Authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using a standardized, pilot-tested form. The meta-analysis was conducted using RStudio for EDSS at the last follow-up, ARR, and new T2 lesion count. We included 9 studies with 867 participants. No significant reduction of EDSS (MD = 0.02, CI 95 % [–0.37; 0.41], p = 0.91), ARR (MD –0.03, CI 95 % [–0.08; 0.02], p = 0.26), or new T2 lesions (MD –0.59, CI 95 % [-1.24;0.07], p = 0.08) was observed at 6–24 months. We found no evidence of publication bias. The findings of this meta-analysis strengthen current evidence that vitamin D 3 supplementation has no significant impact on clinical outcomes in patients with MS. However, the non-significant reduction of new T2 lesions could precede long-term clinical benefits and should be validated in additional studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Optic neuritis (ON) admits diverse differential diagnoses. Petzold proposed diagnostic criteria for ON in 2022, although real-world application of these criteria is missing. We conducted a retrospective review of patients with ON. We classified patients into definite or possible ON, and into groups A (typical neuritis), B (painless), or C (binocular) and estimated the frequency of etiologies for each group. We included 77 patients, with 62% definite and 38% possible ON. CRION and NMOSD-AQP4 negative-ON were less commonly seen in definite ON. Application of the 2022 criteria revealed a lower-than-expected frequency of definite ON, particularly for seronegative non-MS causes. • Optic neuritis diagnostic criteria 2022 may have higher sensitivity for typical ON. • Non-MS seronegative ON may be underrepresented by diagnostic criteria. • Access to biomarkers may be an obstacle for diagnosis of ON in low-income scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]