The paper in this issue from Hemminki courageously takes on the thorny question of the co-association of multiple sclerosis (MS) with other diseases, a query which has had more than a few prior attempts at resolution. A priori, this is not an easy question to answer since MS is not all that common, and many of the diseases which have been sought for co-association are even less so. Among ways to attenuate the problems, the most important are ensuring adequate sample size and controlling for ascertainment. Scandinavian registries are to be envied as on their own they make a strong case for national health delivery. These in particular have been systematically available for study. Hemminki et al. provide a large sample for scrutiny and employ it to conclude that MS is associated with autoimmune and “related” disorders. The dataset is large, the approach is sound, and the investigators are experienced and reliable. The direction of ascertainment, i.e., coming from the autoimmune side, and case-finding for MS is novel and attractive and is complementary to existing studies. There are, however, reasons for misgivings despite my admiration for the authors and their methodology, and this has to do with interpretation of the results. Ascertainment on the basis of hospital admission may select for more severe cases depending on local custom for diagnostic lumbar puncture with geographic variation. It might be that even these may have changed from the previous generation to the present, but both are included in the study. Pooling MS and “related” disorders raises two issues. The first is that adding in cases of familial MS perhaps should not be used to support the argument of co-association as the authors have done. This will surely seem to some a circular argument—increased frequency of MS in the relatives of MS patients is being used to support the thesis that MS is related to autoimmune diseases. Familiality of MS has long been known. The authors, having made a distinction between MS and “related” disorders, perhaps unwittingly merged both into autoimmunity in their discussion. They are so counted in a claimed relative risk of 1.21 for autoimmune disease among the relatives of those with these conditions. Removing MS and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) from the numbers subtracts 139 cases or 12.7% of the total of 1,087 cases identified, eliminating the proposed 1.21× excess of “autoimmunity.” Taking out the asthma inclusion from the ranks of the “autoimmune and related” as well leaves a reduction—not the increase proposed. The inclusion of ALS and asthma does strain the limits of orthodox contemporary concepts of these disorders. It would help to be reassured these inclusions were not made post hoc when the data were found not to fit a prior hypothesis. There is very little evidence that ALS is autoimmune in nature, and asthma seems primarily more in the allergy line with tenuous connections to autoimmunity. It is possible that the ALS findings result from the inclusion of cases of chronic myelopathy (many of whom had MS) from a previous generation especially when upper extremity atrophy was present or spondylosis coexisted. On the other hand, the one thing that MS and ALS do share is progressive central axonal degeneration.
Read full abstract