This might explain why between 1992 and 2017 interferons were the go-to treatment for MS. Interferons (IFNs) are a group of signaling proteins made and released by host cells in response to the presence of several viruses. A virus-infected cell will release interferons causing nearby cells to heighten their anti-viral defenses.
After my diagnosis I personally went on Avonex (an interferon) in 2000, which was the only disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for MS at the time. My neurologist told me that they had no idea why interferons worked for MS, but they proved to be relatively safe and effective as slowing both clinical and symptomatic progression of MS. Naturally I asked the question to all my doctors, "Can a virus in the CNS be involved in triggering T-cells to cross the blood-brain barrier?" They would usually respond, "That's as good an explanation as any."
So I religiously stayed on interferons through to 2014, when the FDA approved an oral medication for MS. By that time I was really getting tired of the constant injections (I hate needles), and my MS had caused minimal problems for me up to that time, so I decided to give the non-interferon DMT it a try. The clinal trial data for this non-interferon medication looked promising. But in the year I was on the non-interferon DMT my MS progressed, and I didn't go back to interferons until after things culminated in a serious attack (relapse). I currently live with a lot of symptoms from new lesions that formed in my spinal cord in that year I was off interferons.
This experience had an impact on how I approach problems in general. These days I'm a lot more likely to stick with technology that is tried and true for any particular problem, even if that older technology is a little painful to set up and use. If it's been working fine up until now, don't rock the boat just because another option has come along.
Of course this doesn't mean I'm inclined to always only ever use old technology. If something very clearly superior comes along that has overhelming evidence of effectiveness, I'm open to changing. In 2017 I made the switch to Ocrelizumab, which is a monoclonal antibody that knocks down your B cells. The data from that was so compelling that I realized that was the right thing to move to from interferons. In hindsight, that has been a much better move than my disastrous experiment with the oral meds.
This recent study relating to EBV confirms my personal suspicions about the role of a virus in the development and progression of MS. Hopefully what this means is that therapies will come along that specifically target proteins only in EBV so that I can get my B cells back, since one of the consequences that a medical study I was in last year revealed is that my body doesn't produce antibodies in response to the COVID vaccine. I'd really like to get antibodies again, since I imagine that could give me more protection than what I get from the other immune cells I have.
After my diagnosis I personally went on Avonex (an interferon) in 2000, which was the only disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for MS at the time. My neurologist told me that they had no idea why interferons worked for MS, but they proved to be relatively safe and effective as slowing both clinical and symptomatic progression of MS. Naturally I asked the question to all my doctors, "Can a virus in the CNS be involved in triggering T-cells to cross the blood-brain barrier?" They would usually respond, "That's as good an explanation as any."
So I religiously stayed on interferons through to 2014, when the FDA approved an oral medication for MS. By that time I was really getting tired of the constant injections (I hate needles), and my MS had caused minimal problems for me up to that time, so I decided to give the non-interferon DMT it a try. The clinal trial data for this non-interferon medication looked promising. But in the year I was on the non-interferon DMT my MS progressed, and I didn't go back to interferons until after things culminated in a serious attack (relapse). I currently live with a lot of symptoms from new lesions that formed in my spinal cord in that year I was off interferons.
This experience had an impact on how I approach problems in general. These days I'm a lot more likely to stick with technology that is tried and true for any particular problem, even if that older technology is a little painful to set up and use. If it's been working fine up until now, don't rock the boat just because another option has come along.
Of course this doesn't mean I'm inclined to always only ever use old technology. If something very clearly superior comes along that has overhelming evidence of effectiveness, I'm open to changing. In 2017 I made the switch to Ocrelizumab, which is a monoclonal antibody that knocks down your B cells. The data from that was so compelling that I realized that was the right thing to move to from interferons. In hindsight, that has been a much better move than my disastrous experiment with the oral meds.
This recent study relating to EBV confirms my personal suspicions about the role of a virus in the development and progression of MS. Hopefully what this means is that therapies will come along that specifically target proteins only in EBV so that I can get my B cells back, since one of the consequences that a medical study I was in last year revealed is that my body doesn't produce antibodies in response to the COVID vaccine. I'd really like to get antibodies again, since I imagine that could give me more protection than what I get from the other immune cells I have.