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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe