Researchers pinpoint key warning signs of MS that are routinely ignored... would YOU recognise them?
Typical symptoms of the autoimmune condition include difficulties walking, vision problem, numbness and muscle cramps.
The latest analysis looked at the health records of 12,000 people, tracking physician visits in the 25 years leading up to the onset of MS symptoms.
It was the first study to examine healthcare usage this far back into a patient's clinical history.
They found a steady increase in the number of visits to a GP as early as 15 years before neurological symptoms set in.
This included an increase in visits to physicians for symptoms like fatigue, pain, dizziness, anxiety and depression.
The visits to psychiatrists for mental health problems specifically increased 12 years before.
But the researchers cautioned that not everyone who has these symptoms will go on to get the debilitating condition.
They also found visits to neurologists and ophthalmologists—also known as eye doctors—for blurry vision or eye pain increased eight to nine years before.
Then they saw an increase in visits to emergency and radiology departments three to five years before.
And finally, they observed an increase in visits to specialist physicians like neurologists a year before.
These patterns show signs 'something is happening beneath the surface' before it declares itself as MS, said Dr. Marta Ruiz-Algueró, a postdoctoral fellow at UBC, the study's first author.
The earliest signs they observed 'can be easily mistaken for other conditions', warned Dr Helen Tremlett, professor of neurology at UBC's faculty.
They believe their findings 'dramatically shift the timeline for when these early warning signs are thought to begin'.
And they potentially open the door to opportunities for earlier detection and intervention, added Dr Tremlett.
Previously other researchers had found symptoms that appear five years before, such as constipation, urinary tract infections, and sexual problems.
MS is a life-changing, incurable condition affecting the brain and spinal cord that causes debilitating muscle spasms, among other symptoms.
While MS does not directly kill, at advanced stages, it can cause weakness in the chest muscles, leading to difficulty breathing and swallowing—which can have life-threatening complications.
Those in the late stage of the illness are also extremely vulnerable to potentially deadly infections.
Some studies show that MS patients are up to 75 per cent more likely to die young than those without the disease.
Most people find out they have MS in their thirties and forties, but the first signs can start years earlier.
The latest study comes amid a concerning rise in cases, with around 150,000 people living with MS in the UK.
This is up from around 130,000 in 2019, according to recent research by the MS Society.
While experts don't know the reason cases are on the rise, possible factors are infections, a lack of vitamin D, smoking, solvents, obesity, and stress.
It is important to spot the early signs of the condition, as while there is no cure for MS, treatments can slow the progression of the disease.
The type of treatment you will need depends on the type of the disease patients have: relapsing remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive.
Relapse and remitting MS involves flare-ups of symptoms where they get worse (relapse) and get better (remission).
Over time it often develops into secondary progressive MS, when symptoms are there all the time, and get slowly worse.
In the less common case of primary progressive MS, symptoms slowly getting worse over time without periods of them going away or getting better.
Treatments may include several types of medication such as steroids, disease-modifying therapies, muscle relaxants, and those to treat pain and other symptoms.
Other types of support include advice on fatigue, physiotherapy, mobility equipment, talking therapies, and cognitive rehabilitation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Hold the fries! How your favorite salty side can increase your risk of type 2 diabetes
A new study has found eating a certain amount of French fries a week can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Nothing beats salt-coated fries straight out of the fryer, but next time you order a burger, you may want to tell the restaurant, 'Hold the fries!' A study published in The BMJ journal Wednesday found eating three servings of fries a week could increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 20 percent. Those who eat fries five times a week have a 27 percent increased risk of the chronic disease, according to the study. But potato lovers should not fear, as researchers found those who eat similar amounts of boiled, baked, or mashed potatoes do not face an elevated risk of the disease. An international team, including an expert from the University of Cambridge, analyzed health data from more than 205,000 U.S. health workers, with repeated surveys about their diets, tracking their well-being over nearly four decades. During this extensive follow-up period, some 22,000 cases of type 2 diabetes were documented. 'The risks associated with potato intake varied by cooking method,' the researchers wrote. 'The association between higher potato intake and increased T2D risk is primarily driven by intake of French fries.' The research team also found that replacing three servings of potatoes each week with whole grains was found to lower the risk of type 2 diabetes by 8 percent. 'Replacing any form of potatoes, particularly French fries, with whole grains is estimated to lower the risk of T2D, reinforcing the importance of promoting whole grains as an essential part of a healthy diet,' researchers wrote. But replacing potatoes with white rice was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, they found. In a linked editorial, also published in The BMJ, experts from the U.S. and Denmark wrote: 'This finding also corresponds to the observed associations between high intake of ultra-processed foods and high risk of type 2 diabetes – French fries are often ultra-processed, whereas baked, boiled, or mashed potatoes are often minimally processed.' They added: 'With their relatively low environmental impact and their health impact, potatoes can be part of a healthy and sustainable diet, though whole grains should remain a priority.'
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
UK warned it risks exodus of 'disillusioned' doctors
Nearly one in five doctors is considering quitting in the UK, new figures show, while one in eight is thinking about leaving the country to work abroad. The General Medical Council (GMC), which commissioned the research, is warning that plans to cut hospital waiting lists will be at risk unless more is done to retain them. By July 2029, the prime minister has said 92% of patients needing routine hospital treatment like hip and knee replacements will be seen within 18 weeks. "[Poor staff retention] could threaten government ambitions to reduce waiting times and deliver better care to patients," warned the authors of the GMC's latest report. The main reason doctors gave for considering moving abroad was they are "treated better" in other countries, while the second most common reason was better pay. Some 43% said they had researched career opportunities in other countries, while 15% reported taking "hard steps" towards moving abroad, like applying for roles or contacting recruiters. "Like any profession, doctors who are disillusioned with their careers will start looking elsewhere," said Charlie Massey, chief executive of the GMC. "Doctors need to be satisfied, supported, and see a hopeful future for themselves, or we may risk losing their talent and expertise altogether." 3:13 The report - which comes after a recent five-day walkout by resident doctors - is based on the responses of 4,697 doctors around the UK and also explores how they feel about career progression. One in three said they are unable to progress their education, training and careers in the way they want. Those who didn't feel like their careers were progressing were at higher risk of burnout and were less satisfied with their work. The GMC blamed workloads, competition for jobs, and lack of senior support for development for adversely impacting the career progression of UK doctors. 2:51 'Legitimate complaints' The Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged doctors had suffered "more than a decade of neglect". "Doctors have legitimate complaints about their conditions, including issues with training bottlenecks and career progression," said a spokesperson. "We want to work with them to address these and improve their working lives, which includes our plans set out in the 10 Year Health Plan to prioritise UK graduates and increase speciality training posts. "This government is committed to improving career opportunities and working conditions, bringing in ways to recognise and reward talent - as well as freeing up clinicians' time by cutting red tape."
