Abstract about "iatrogenic CNS demyelination in the era of modern biologics"

[agate]

"Iatrogenic CNS demyelination in the era of modern biologics," an abstract from PubMed (February 16, 2019), seems to be saying that some biologic drugs (and the MS drugs are often biologics, no?) cause "full-blown multiple sclerosis" or central nervous system demyelination very much like MS sometimes.

It also says:

Luckily, the overall prognosis of iatrogenic central inflammation is favorable, with most cases having partial or complete response to steroids and discontinuation of the offending agent.

Only registered and activated users can see links., Click Here To Register...

Is this something we've known for a long time here? I don't recall seeing it mentioned before.

[Virginia]

I haven't seen it before I don't think, but then so much conflicting information comes out that it is hard to remember.

[agate]

I wonder how it is that they can cure the type of MS that comes on as a result of biologic drugs but the usual type of MS, the type that just shows up in our lives for no known reason, doesn't go away.

Maybe what they're looking at when they're studying the effects of the biologics isn't really the same disease? It just looks so much like it that that's what they're calling it?

[Sunshine]

Think of it this way:

There is a type of Stiff Person Syndrome that is caused by cancer. Fix the cancer, the SPS goes away.

So, the med induced MS is perhaps a phenomenon masquerading as MS, and not truly MS?

[agate]

So, the med induced MS is perhaps a phenomenon masquerading as MS, and not truly MS?

That's what I'm thinking too. But if that is the way it is, then they still haven't really sorted out yet just what is MS and what isn't. And yet they're calling it "full-blown multiple sclerosis" in the abstract. Maybe they were a bit careless in their language and didn't exactly mean that? Maybe they meant "a disease so closely resembling full-blown MS that it was impossible to differentiate between them"?

I've never heard of anyone who was cured of MS, and yet that's what they're saying happened. I can only conclude that they weren't looking at "real" MS--or what am I missing?

[jendie]

This is giving me a headache... if anyone figures out for sure what the abstract was trying to say, could someone please clue me in?

[Virginia]

Ditto for me Jendie.

[agate]

There are many many studies out there, and most of them are probably not of much use. This may very well be one of them, particularly since the authors of the abstract haven't made themselves clear.