Allergy, family history of autoimmune diseases, and the risk of multiple sclerosis.

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica (Impact Factor: 2.44). 02/2008; 117(1):15-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2007.00898.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous reports suggested an association between allergy, autoimmunity, and risk of multiple sclerosis (MS), but results have been inconsistent. The present study assessed the association between history of allergy and autoimmune diseases, and the risk of MS.
We conducted a case-control study nested in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and NHS II cohorts. A total of 298 women with MS were matched with 1248 healthy controls and 248 women with history of breast cancer. A mailed questionnaire gathered information about history of allergic conditions and autoimmune disorders.
History of allergy was not associated with MS risk [odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-1.4]. As expected, cases were more likely to have a positive family history of MS than controls (OR 9.7, 95% CI 6.1-15.3). A modest association was found between family history of other autoimmune diseases and MS risk (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8). We obtained similar results when we used women with breast cancer as comparison group.
Family history of other autoimmune diseases was associated with a higher MS risk, suggesting a common genetic background or shared environmental triggers. There was no clear association between personal history of allergy and risk of MS.

  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We present the patient with the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), relapsing-remitting form with long lasting remission. Unexpectedly, this patient presented dramatical clinical deterioration and revealed clinical symptoms such as bradypsychia, cognitive symptoms, central vestibulare syndrome, spastic quadruparesis. Clinical findings suggested secondary progressive MS, but MRI called in question this diagnosis. The MRI appearance suggested, that MS had been complicated by a different brain pathological lesion, and the brain biopsy was indicated. A histological examination confirmed primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL). This case exemplifies important aspects of clinical neurology. A re-evaluation of the diagnosis of MS should always be performed in a patient when new symptoms are presented that are unusual or could be due to other pathological processes. MRI offers the highly sensitive way to detect the coexistence of MS and other brain disease. Primary goal of imaging modalities is differential diagnosis between demyelinating diseases, such as MS and other brain lesions. Advanced focus demand contrast- enhancing and mass- effect lesions. It is important to realize, that contrast-enhancement and brain edema may be mitigated by treatment with corticosteroids. In some cases a brain biopsy is needed.
    Neuro endocrinology letters 01/2009; 29(6):867-70. · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Th1 up-regulation seems to favour autoimmunity, while Th2 up-regulation seems to favour humoral immunity. Accordingly, subjects affected by atopic diseases (such as allergic respiratory diseases, ARDs) should be less prone to autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis, MS), and vice versa. The recent identification of Th17 cells, which seem to favour the development of both autoimmunity and allergy, led to the revision of the classic Th1/Th2 paradigm. We studied 200 MS patients and 200 controls to analyze the relationships between ARDs and MS. MS patients had less probability to suffer from ARDs (OR = 0.30, p < 0.001) and allergic rhinitis (OR = 0.25, p < 0.001), after adjusting for environmental factors. MS tended to be less severe when associated to ARDs. Our findings add some elements for the comprehension of immune mechanisms involved in MS pathogenesis and suggest to analyze other MS cohorts, in order to evaluate if MS patients affected by allergic diseases show particular clinical findings.
    Neurological Sciences 04/2009; 30(2):115-8. DOI:10.1007/s10072-009-0036-8 · 1.50 Impact Factor