MS treatment has patients seeking surgery--but more testing is needed

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


TORONTO—Like electrical wires, neurons are insulated. But in multiple sclerosis (MS), the insulation (called myelin) is stripped or worn down, slowing conduction along the axons—the wires of the nervous system. MS is widely considered to be an autoimmune disease, in which the myelin is attacked by the body’s own T cells. But Paulo Zamboni, director of the Vascular Diseases Center at the University of Ferrara in Italy, thinks a blockage in the veins that drain blood from the brain is the part of the problem. In his pilot study, published December 2009 in The Journal of Vascular Surgery, MS patients who had such blockages (called chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiencies) fixed surgically, including Zamboni's wife, showed a significant improvement.

News of the treatment traveled fast and MS patients around the world, eager for a remedy, began asking for the experimental procedure. But doctors outside the study remain skeptical. The main limitation to Zamboni's pilot trial is that it was "open-label," meaning patients knew they were receiving the treatment and so did the researchers. And when hopes are high in both parties, bias can occur. But despite doctors' cautionary words about Zamboni's preliminary findings, some patients have journeyed to clinics in Poland and beyond and paid more than $10,000 for the procedure.

Zamboni's controversial treatment, which he presented here as an invited speaker April 14 at the American Academy of Neurology's annual meeting, highlights the need for properly designed clinical trials in which patients are randomly assigned to treatment and placebo groups and both patients and researchers are unaware of who has received treatment or placebo. Promising results from open-label pilot studies can prompt patients, desperate for a cure, to seek out risky and costly experimental treatments that might not work as expected.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Image: iStockphoto/dpmike

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe