Abstract
Background:
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease whose aetiology is not fully understood. The female sex is clearly predominant, with a sex ratio between 2 and 3. In primary progressive MS the sex ratio almost balances out. Since the age at onset is higher for patients with progressive onset (POMS) than for relapsing onset (ROMS), it can be hypothesized that the age at onset is a decisive factor for the sex ratio.
Methods:
To address this aspect, we compare clinical and demographic data between females and males for the different disease courses within the population of the German MS Register by the German MS Society. Only patients with complete details in mandatory data items and a follow-up visit since 01. Jan 2018 were included.
Results:
A total of 18,728 patients were included in our analyses, revealing a female-to-male ratio of 2.6 (2.7 for patients with ROMS and 1.3 for POMS). The age at diagnosis is higher in patients with POMS (43.3 and 42.3 years for females and males versus 32.1 and 33.2 years, respectively). Females irrespective of disease course are statistically significantly more often affected by cognitive impairment (POMS: p = 0.013, ROMS: p = 0.001) and depression (POMS: p = 0.002, ROMS: 0.001) and suffer more often from pain (POMS and ROMS: p < 0.001). Fatigue is significantly more often seen in females with ROMS (p < 0.001) but not in POMS. Females with ROMS retire significantly (p < 0.001) earlier (42.8 versus 44.2 years) and to a greater extent than males (28 versus 24%). Disease progression was similar for women and men.
Conclusion:
Our analysis shows that clinical and demographic data differ more between disease courses than between men and women. For pain, depression and cognitive impairment the female sex is the decisive factor. Whether these factors are responsible for the earlier retirement of females with ROMS is not clear. Appropriate measures for optimization of symptomatic treatment as well as to promote employment should be taken.
Keywords: age of onset, multiple sclerosis, progressive MS, relapsing MS, sex ratio
Introduction
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease that occurs primarily in young adults and whose aetiology is not fully understood.1,2 The clinical course of MS is very heterogeneous and a distinction can be made between relapsing and progressive courses.3,4 The age of onset is around 30 years in patients with relapsing onset (ROMS) and around 42 years in patients with progressive onset (POMS). In MS there is a significant predominance of the female sex compared with males,1,5 with a female-to-male ratio (sex ratio) between 2 and 3 that has been increasing over the last decades.6,7 The causes are not clear, but lifestyle changes and environmental interactions may have changed the risk of being affected by MS over recent years. Increased cigarette smoking, higher body mass index may have increased the risk of developing MS, while diet (especially consumption of fish) and outdoor activities may have reduced the risk. Changes in reproductive behaviour and hormonal changes also have an impact on the risk of developing MS. The latter includes taking contraceptives and the average later birth of the first child.8–11 These environmental factors are changing, are heterogeneously distributed in populations and may occur in mutually opposing ways. The exact role on MS is therefore difficult to determine.
The causes are not clear, but various sex-specific environmental interactions might have changed over time, such as cigarette smoking, diet (especially consumption of fish), urban lifestyles, outdoor activities, body mass index, hormone changes in women and reproductive behaviour, which might play a role on the risk of MS. An interesting observation is that the sex ratio almost balances out in POMS.12,13 Since the age at onset is higher in patients with POMS than in patients with ROMS, and since the sex ratio between POMS and ROMS is different, we want to examine to what extent the varying pathophysiology between both disease courses14 is reflected in the clinical spectrum of patients. To answer this question, we analyse the female-to-male ratio (sex ratio) for clinical and demographic data and for the various disease courses. On the one hand, whether the clinical data of women and men differ within the respective disease courses (comparison of women and men separately for ROMS and POMS) will be analysed, and on the other hand whether the data for the respective sex differ between the different disease courses (clinical data of women and men in direct comparison between ROMS and POMS).
Patients and methods
The German MS Register (GMSR; Deutsches Multiple Sklerose Register) was established by the German MS Society (Deutsche Multiple Sklerose Gesellschaft, DMSG) in 2001 to provide a comprehensive insight into the status of people with MS (PwMS) in Germany.15 For the analysis presented here, data were extracted from the GMSR in March 2020. Only patients for whom data on the basic variables sex, date of birth, date of onset of the disease, and disease course at onset and symptoms were available and who had had a recent follow-up visit after 1 January 2018 were analysed. Data from the last visit are assessed. Descriptive statistics include frequencies and percentages for categorical data, means and standard deviations for metric data, and median and quartiles for ordinal data. A two-way analysis of variance was performed to compare both sexes, demographic data, symptoms and their interaction effects. For binary outcomes generalized linear models were used with logistic link function. To achieve robust inference additional matched analyses were carried out, in which each male with MS was 1:1-matched with a female with MS by year of birth, year of onset and disease course at onset, to avoid confounding. Data transformation and statistical analysis were performed using R 3.6.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria).
Anonymized data will be made available on request by any qualified investigator under the terms of the registries’ usage and access guidelines and subject to informed consent of the patients.
The GMSR was registered with the German Register of Clinical Studies (DRKS; Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS; No. DRKS00011257). Ethical approval for the registry and analysis was received by the IRB at the University Hospital of Würzburg (No. 142/12).
Results
Data were from 21,119 patients who had no open queries and sufficient follow-up visits since 1 January 2018. Patients excluded either because of missing date of onset or because the disease course at onset was not definite totalled 2,391. Thus, a total of 18,728 patients were included in the subsequent analyses. Table 1 presents demographic data on the patients stratified by disease course at onset and sex.
Table 1.
Demographic data of analysed patients.
| ROMS Females n = 12,819 |
ROMS Males n = 4,778 |
p-value (ROMS) | POMS Females n = 640 |
POMS Males n = 491 |
p-value (POMS) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease duration, mean (SD) | 14.1 (10.1) | 13.1 (9.6) | <0.001 | 15.1 (10.7) | 13.8 (9.6) | 0.034 |
| Age at onset, mean (SD) | 32.1 (10.3) | 33.2 (10.3) | <0.001 | 43.3 (11.0) | 42.3 (11.0) | 0.11 |
| Time to diagnosis, mean (SD) | 1.7 (3.9) | 1.5 (3.7) | 0.088 | 2.9 (5.5) | 2.8 (4.6) | 0.83 |
| EDSS, mean (SD) | 2.9 (2.1) | 3.1 (2.2) | <0.001 | 5.1 (2.0) | 5.0 (1.8) | 0.70 |
| Current DMT, any type: yes/no, % | 77% | 80% | <0.001 | 42% | 48% | 0.052 |
| Age retired | 42.8 (9.56) | 44.2 (9.29) | <0.001 | 49.4 (8.59) | 48.7 (9.52) | 0.49 |
| Early retirement, % | 28% | 24% | <0.001 | 47% | 43% | 0.29 |
Early retirement = inability to work due to multiple sclerosis (MS).
DMT, disease modifying therapy; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale; POMS, progressive onset of MS; ROMS, relapsing onset of MS.
Within the disease courses (ROMS and POMS, respectively), females with a relapsing onset are younger than males, but older for a progressive onset (32.1 versus 33.1, p < 0.001; 43.3. versus 42.3, p = 0.11). Whereas the differences are rather small within the various disease courses (1.1 years in ROMS and 1.0 year in POMS), the differences between the disease course (ROMS versus POMS) are larger (>10 years) and highly significant (p < 0.001). The female sex in itself has no significant influence on the age at the onset (p = 0.09). A significant effect can be seen if interactions between the course of the disease and the female sex are considered (p < 0.001). In addition to the higher age at diagnosis in patients with POMS (see Figure 1), the disease duration is longer and the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score is higher. Patients with POMS retire at a later age, but after a much shorter period of illness than patients with ROMS, and to a greater extent (see Table 1). Considering the patients with relapsing onset, it was found that women left work significantly (p < 0.001) earlier (42.8 versus 44.2 years) and to a larger extent (28% versus 24%).
Figure 1.
Age at onset for females (red) and males (blue) and progressive onset multiple sclerosis (POMS; left) and relapsing onset multiple sclerosis (ROMS; right).
Optic neuritis and visual disturbances as first symptoms were more frequent in women than in men in both disease courses (ROMS versus POMS: women: 44% versus 20%, men: 41% versus 18%), but the difference was much less pronounced than between the disease courses (p < 0.001). Similarly, sensory deficits were more frequent (p < 0.001) in patients with ROMS than with POMS (females: 62% versus 46%, males: 59% versus 39%). Conversely, motor symptoms and cerebellar disorders were significantly (both: p < 0.001) more common in POMS (females: 71% versus 37% and 34% versus 21%, respectively, males: 76% versus 41% and 38% versus 23%, respectively). Statistically significant differences for women and men were found for motoric impairments (paresis) (p < 0.001) in patients with ROMS with male predominance, while women were more frequently affected by optic neuritis and sensory impairment (p < 0.001). In POMS patients there is a statistically significant difference between women and men for sensory disturbances as an initial symptom, with women being more affected than men (p = 0.039), whereas motor impairment was more frequently observed in men (p = 0.052); see Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Frequency of initial symptoms in females and males, broken down by disease course [relapsing onset multiple sclerosis (A) and progressive onset multiple sclerosis (B)].
p-values: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Figure 3 gives details of the current symptoms of the analysed patients. Gait problems, spasticity and ataxia are the most common symptoms in patients with POMS and are significantly (p < 0.001) more frequent compared with patients with ROMS. Symptoms with lower prevalence, including micturition problems (p < 0.001), pain (p < 0.001), constipation (p < 0.001) and dysarthria (p = 0.002), are significantly more common in patients with POMS than with ROMS.
Figure 3.
Frequency of current symptoms in females and males, broken down by disease course [relapsing onset multiple sclerosis (A) and progressive onset multiple sclerosis (B)].
p-values: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Within ROMS patients, statistically significantly more women report fatigue, depression, pain (all: p < 0.001) and cognitive impairment (p = 0.001), while men are more often affected by spasticity and ataxia (p < 0.001). Regarding urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction is reported more frequently in men (p < 0.001), while micturition problems are reported more frequently in women.
In patients with POMS, women are statistically significantly more likely to experience impairment of cognition (p = 0.013) and depression (p = 0.002) and suffer more often from pain (p < 0.001). Men, on the other hand, are affected more frequently by sexual dysfunction (p = 0.002).
Figure 4 gives an overview of the development of disability in patients with ROMS and POMS grouped by women and men. The development of disability in patients is largely parallel for men and women in their respective courses, while patients with POMS reach EDSS 6 on average several years earlier. This is evident in terms of age and disease duration.
Figure 4.
The temporal course of disability in women (red) and men (blue) in their respective disease courses and broken down by age and disease duration. (A) EDSS of patients with relapsing onset multiple sclerosis (ROMS) broken down by age. (B) EDSS of patients with progressive onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) broken down by age. (C) EDSS of patients with ROMS broken down by disease duration (years). (D) EDSS of patients with POMS broken down by disease duration (years). The solid line shows the proportion of patients with the corresponding EDSS (left axis). The dotted line shows the percentage of patients who have not reached an EDSS of 6 (right axis).
EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale.
Discussion
The main findings of our study are that we observed slight differences between men and women, in terms of both initial and current symptoms. Due to the high case numbers for ROMS, statistical significance is achieved for some initial symptoms such as motor and cerebellar deficits with male dominance, but the clinical relevance remains unclear. There is a higher prevalence of depression in women when symptoms first appear; this difference increases as the disease progresses and seems to be relevant already at an early stage. Women in particular are more affected in terms of neuropsychological and emotional symptoms such as fatigue, cognition, pain and, as already mentioned, depression for both disease courses. Pain perception was associated with depression and fatigue and it has been shown that women have a higher odds ratio than men to suffer from it.16
The number of patients differs significantly between men and women in our analysis. Therefore, we have carried out further analyses. We compared ROMS and POMS patients in 491 female and male patients with POMS in a 1:1 ratio according to disease progression, age at onset and duration of disease. This analysis confirmed the previously discussed results and is in accordance with the literature, where the age at onset of disease is 33.2 years for men and women in relapsing onset and 42.7 years (female) and 42.3 years (male) for patients with progressive onset.1,12 The striking findings with significantly more affected female patients with pain, depression, cognitive disorders are confirmed (p < 0.001).
The differences between the sexes are less pronounced than the differences between the courses of the disease.17 Some of these differences, such as significantly more frequent gait problems, spasticity, ataxia, fatigue, pain, micturition problems, sexual dysfunction and dysarthria in patients with POMS are probably due to the advanced stage of the disease (EDSS in POMS 5 versus 3 in ROMS). A new aspect of our analysis is that women with a relapsing onset leave work earlier and to a greater extent than men. This is surprising, since a more rapid disability progression and a faster progression of brain atrophy as well as a decrease in cognition has been described for male patients.17–19 However, in our study we showed that neuropsychological symptoms are more prevalent in women than in men even at an early disease stage. This discrepancy between the sexes was not seen in a study investigating depression20 and is not known for cognition impairment.18 In a small study, depression correlated with disability and negatively with employment status21 and may help to interpret our data. Interestingly, whereas females were more often affected by neuropsychological symptoms, males were more frequently affected by walking impairment, spasticity and ataxia. However, our data showed that the disability progression expressed by the EDSS was parallel for women and men.17–19
Nevertheless, we were able to confirm many of the differences described so far in our study. In accordance with the most recent reports, the sex ratio in our analysis is 2.6.22 The increased female-to-male ratio is mainly due to the ratio of 2.7 in patients with ROMS. About 93% of the patients analysed suffer from this disease course, while the sex ratio in patients with POMS is 1.3. One possible contributing factor for this different sex ratio may be the age at the onset of the disease, which for POMS is on average 10 years later in our analysis and in consistency with the literature.1,12 An evaluation of age dependency and the sex of patients showed that the sex ratio decreases with increasing age.23 In order to analyse this dependency in more detail, we studied the interactions between the sexes and the course of the disease. The course of the disease itself (p < 0.001), in contrast to the sex alone (p = 0.09), had a significant effect on age at onset. The interaction between sex and disease progression also showed a significant interaction (p = 0.009). No further interactions (for demographic and clinical data) between the course of the disease and the sex could be shown in the analyses. This could indicate that, in addition to the disease course, other factors, such as genetics or hormones,19,24,25 could be relevant and have an influence on the development and pathophysiology of the disease (e.g. inflammation,14,26 regeneration,27,28 including brain plasticity,29–31 and neurodegeneration).32 Pathophysiological differences between relapsing and progressive MS have been described. In relapsing–remitting MS patients (with significantly increased female-to-male ratio), the inflammatory component is the driver of disease activity, while in progressive patients (with an almost balanced female-to-male ratio) neurodegeneration is the most important.1,33 Histopathological studies showed that men harbour more smouldering lesions when aged 45–55 than women; however, above the age of 60 this difference balanced out; an effect of sex hormones was discussed.34 A predominance of the female sex is also found in other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), in which the sex ratio changes with age in patients with the highest female-to-male ratio at childbearing age and decreases after menopause.35 Hormonal influences, and in particular oestrogen and its receptors, appear to influence pathogenesis and disease activity, although the underlying mechanisms are not understood.36,37 Hormonal effects on disease activity can also be discussed in humans, as the relapse rate in MS patients decreases during pregnancy but increases again after delivery.38,39 Interestingly, it is precisely this decrease in disease activity during pregnancy that is not observed in SLE patients.40 In animal models it was discussed whether testosterone is a protective factor for the development of an experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis.41 These conflicting results again underline the distinctness of the individual autoimmune diseases and with different immune cell lines suggested to be responsible for disease progression.42,43 What has to be discussed is that sex hormones have a variety of effects on MS, as can be seen from the higher rate of disease in women, the effects of pregnancy on disease activity and those presented in our analysis. However, these differences are not fully understood. This is also due to the fact that there are a number of hormones, such as oestrogens, progesterone, androgens, prolactin, whose effects on the immune system are poorly understood, for example, oestrogens on the innate and adaptive immune system, and which are not understood under the influence and interaction of environmental factors.44
To study hormonal changes and effects on the disease, for example, after menopause, would be of great importance to be able to determine the influence of gender more precisely, but cannot be provided by our analysis. The different age for POMS and ROMS with different sex ratios can only be understood as a vague indicator of a correlation. The limitations of a registry are that data are not collected systematically as in a clinical trial. Neuropsychological symptoms have been evaluated by neuropsychological tests, specialist assessment by psychiatrists or clinical evaluation by the treating physician and our results must therefore be interpreted with knowledge of these limitations. However, these data reflect reality more than a laboratory situation.
Conclusion
Our analysis shows that the differences in clinical presentation between men and women in MS persist across the different disease courses. The differences over the course of the disease are greater than the differences within the course of the disease between the sexes. However, depression, cognitive impairment and pain are more frequently reported in women across all disease courses. In addition, women with a relapsing onset of the disease leave work earlier. This is of great relevance and the reasons for that are unclear. Physicians should be aware of these differences and take appropriate measures (e.g. optimization of pain therapy, neuropsychological care, measures to promote employment).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all patients that have given their informed consent to be included in the GMSR. Furthermore, this study would not have been possible without the efforts of the centres participating in the registries. Our thanks go out to all members of staff in the centres listed below for their continued efforts.
Medizinische Versorgungszentren, Altenburger Land GmbH, Altenburg
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr med. A. Safavi und M. Schädel, Alzenau
Neurozentrum Alzey, Dr Loos/Dr Bernhard, Alzey
Rhein-Mosel-Fachklinik Andernach, Zentrum für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Neurologie, Andernach
DRK Kamillus Klinik, Neurologische Abteilung, Asbach
Praxis Dr Hofmann, Aschaffenburg
Zentrum für Neurologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie Asperg, Asperg
HELIOS Klinikum Aue, Klinik für Neurologie, Aue
Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Neurologische Klinik mit klinischer Neurophysiologie, Augsburg
Dr Schöll, Dr Steidl & Kollegen, Bad Homburg
August-Bier-Klinik, Fachklinik für Neurologie, Neurotraumatologie und Rehabilitation, Bad Malente-Gremsmühlen
Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim gGmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, Bad Mergentheim
Rhön-Klinikum Campus Bad Neustadt, Klinik für Neurologie, Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale
Johanniter Ordenshäuser, Neurologische Abteilung, Bad Oeynhausen
MediClin Reha-Zentrum Bad Orb, Neuro-orthopädisches Reha-Zentrum, Bad Orb
Bathildis-Krankenhaus Bad Pyrmont, Klinik für Neurologie, Bad Pyrmont
Segeberger Kliniken GmbH, Neurologisches Zentrum, Bad Segeberg
Neurologisches Rehabilitationszentrum Quellenhof, Bad Wildbad
Wicker-Klinik, Neurologische Abteilung, Bad Wildungen
Dr Becker Kiliani-Klinik, Neurologische Abteilung, Bad Windsheim
Hardtwaldklinik I, Neurologisches Zentrum, Bad Zwesten
Neurologische Klinik Selzer GmbH, Baiersbronn
Kallmann Neurologie – Multiple Sklerose Zentrum Bamberg (MSZB), Dr med. Boris-A. Kallmann, Bamberg
Praxisklinik für Neurologie, Psychiatrie, Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Dres. Käfferlein, Dengler, Jung und Schreiber, Bamberg
Klinik Hohe Warte Bayreuth, Neurologische Klinik, Bayreuth
Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln – Klinik für Neurologie, Spezialambulanz für Multiple Sklerose, Berlin
Neurologische Praxis, MD Turki Akil, Berlin
Jüdisches Krankenhaus Berlin, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Charite, Zentrum für Multiple Sklerose, Berlin
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Ambulanz für Multiple Sklerose und Neuroimmunologie, Berlin
Alexianer St Joseph-Krankenhaus Berlin-Weißensee, Klinik für Neurologie/MS Ambulanz §116 B, Berlin
Neurozentrum Bielefeld-Brackwede, Dres. med. J. und M. Böhringer, Dr J. Katzmann, F. Sudfeldt, Bielefeld
Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bethel gGmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, Bielefeld
Medical Park Loipl, Bischofswiesen
Neurologische Praxis, Böblingen
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dres. med. Niederhofer, Kauermann, Küper, Bochum
Neurologische Facharztpraxis Dr I. Nastos, Bochum
Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Bochum
St. Josef-Hospital, Klinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Klinik für Neurologie, Bochum
Gemeinschaftspraxis Kausch & Lippert, Bogen
Neurologisches Rehabilitationszentrum Godeshöhe e.V., Bonn
Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Bonn
Asklepios Fachklinikum Brandenburg, Klinik für Neurologie, Brandenburg
Neurozentrum Schlosscarree, Dr med. Ekkehard Klippel, Braunschweig
Städtisches Klinikum Braunschweig gGmbH, Neurologische Klinik, Braunschweig
Neurologische Praxis Dr Anja Laubach, Braunschweig
Klinikum Bremerhaven Reinkenheide, Neurologische Tagesklinik, Bremerhaven
Carl-Thiem Klinikum Cottbus, Klinik für Neurologie, Cottbus
Dr med. Martin Delf, Facharzt für Neurologie, Dahlwitz-Hoppegarten bei Berlin
HELIOS Rehaklinik Damp GmbH, Abteilung Neurologie, Damp
Bezirksklinikum Mainkofen, Neurologische Klinik, Deggendorf
Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis Dillingen, Dillingen
Praxis für Neurologie Leclaire/Rotermund, DOC Center Dortmund, Dortmund
Multiple Sklerose Zentrum Dresden, Neurologische Uniklinik Dresden, Dresden
Neurologische Klinik Dülmen, Christophorus – Kliniken GmbH, Dülmen
Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum Düren – Lendersdorf, Praxis Dr Brand, Düren
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Westdeutsches MS-Zentrum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
Martin Gropius Krankenhaus Eberswalde, Klinik für Neurologie, Eberswalde
Neurologie im MVZ und Klinikum Eisenach, Eisenach
HELIOS Klinikum Erfurt GmbH, Klinik Für Neurologie, Erfurt
Praxis Dr Kirchhöfer, Erfurt
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Klinik für Neurologie, Erlangen
Dr med. Edgar Bollensen, Facharzt für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, Eschwege
Universitätsklinikum Essen, Klinik für Neurologie, MS-Ambulanz, Essen
Alfried-Krupp-Krankenhaus, Klinik für Neurologie, Essen
Praxis Nervenstark, Essen
Zentrum für ambulante Neurologie, Essen
Fachklinik Feldberg GmbH, Klinik am Haussee, Feldberger Seenlandschaft
Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Klinik für Neurologie, Frankfurt/Main
Krankenhaus Nordwest GmbH, Neurologische Klinik, Frankfurt/Main
Kliniken Schmieder Gailingen, Neurologisches Fach- und Rehabilitationskrankenhaus, Gailingen
SRH Waldklinikum Gera GmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, Gera
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dres. Ivancic & Kollegen, Gersthofen
Kath. Kliniken Emscher-Lippe GmbH, St Barbara-Hospital, Neurologische Abteilung, Gladbeck
Dr med. Kornelia Seidel, Praxis für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, Gladenbach
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Klinik für Neurologie, Göttingen
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Greifswald
VAMED Klinik Hagen-Ambrock GmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, Hagen
Lars Daume, Facharzt für Neurologie, Halle
Städtisches Krankenhaus Martha-Maria Halle-Dölau gGmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, Halle
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dres. Schult/Löffler-Wulff, Hamburg
Praxisgemeinschaft Neurologie – Psychiatrie, Elias/Elias-Hamp und Hebell-Siewers, Hamburg
RehaCentrum Hamburg GmbH, Fachbereich Neurologie, Hamburg
Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Neurologische Klinik, Heidelberg
Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum, Zentrum für Sozialpsychiatrie und Nervenheilkunde GmbH, Hemmoor
Klinik Hennigsdorf, Oberhavel Kliniken GmbH, Neurologische Abteilung, Hennigsdorf
Klinikum Herford, Klinik für Neurologie/MS-Ambulanz, Herford
Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum Herne, Herne
Celenus Klinik für Neurologie Hilchenbach, Hilchenbach
HELIOS Fachkliniken Hildburghausen, Klinik für Neurologie, Hildburghausen
Praxis für Neurologie, Doctor-medic Claudia Man, Höxter
Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Klinik für Neurologie, Ibbenbüren
MVZ Immenstadt Allgäu GmbH, Neurologie, Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Immenstadt
Alexianer Misericordia GmbH – Augustahospital Anholt, Klinik für Neurologie, Isselburg-Anholt
Neurozentrum am Klosterforst, Itzehoe
Universitätsklinikum Jena, Neurologische Klinik, Jena
Neurozentrum Kaltenkirchen, Kaltenkirchen
ZNS Kamen, Neurologisch-Psychiatrische Praxisgemeinschaft, Kamen
Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe gGmbH, Neurologische Klinik, Karlsruhe
Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis Kassel Vellmar, Lassek/Dr Ammerbach/Dr Fetzer/Fischer, Kassel
Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Ambulanz und Tagesklinik für Neuroimmunologie und Multiple Sklerose, Kiel
Heilig Geist-Krankenhaus, Klinik für Neurologie, Köln
Praxis rechts vom Rhein, Dr med. Jan-Dirk Seifert und PD Dr med. Hela-Felicitas Petereit, Köln
NeuroMed Campus Nelles, Scharpegge, Haupt, Scharwat, Fachärzte für Neurologie, Schmerztherapie, Köln
Universitätsklinikum Köln, Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Köln
Kliniken Schmieder Konstanz, Neurologisches Fach- und Rehabilitationskrankenhaus, Konstanz
MVZ der Spitalstiftung Konstanz, Im Fachzentrum am Klinikum, Konstanz
Praxisgemeinschaft Neurologie am Zoo, Krefeld
Praxis Dr Pfeffer & Dr Staudinger-Pfeffer, Praxis für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, Landshut
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr med. B. Wittmann & P. Rieger, Landshut
Ärztehaus Stötteritz, Neurologische Praxis, Leipzig
hygieia.net Leipzig, Leipzig
Klinikum Lippe-Lemgo, Neurologische Klinik, Lemgo
Helios Klinik Lengerich GmbH, Abteilung Neurologie, Lengerich
Märkische Kliniken GmbH, Klinikum Lüdenscheid, Klinik für Neurologie, Lüdenscheid
Neuropsychiatricum, Dr Deibel/Dr Fischer/Dr Klenk/Dr Kohlmaier/Dr Stenzel, Ludwigshafen
Gemeinschaftspraxis Katte, Vogelsang-Dietz, Graf, Lünen
St-Marien-Hospital GmbH, Neurologische Klinik, Lünen
Neurologische Praxis U. Kullik, Lutherstadt Eisleben
MEDIAN Klinik NRZ Magdeburg, Magdeburg
MS-Spezialambulanz Stephanik, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Magdeburg
Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Klinik für Neurologie, Marburg
Neurologie in Meerbusch, Meerbusch
Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Memmingen, Memmingen
Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis im medicentrum Mönchengladbach, Mönchengladbach
Fachübergreifende Gemeinschaftspraxis Neurologie & Radiologie, Mosbach
Ökumenisches Hainich Klinikum gGmbH, Neurologische Klinik, Mühlhausen
Neuro-Psychiatrisches Zentrum Riem, München
Gemeinschaftspraxis Rickert/Enck/Jansen, Münster
Neurologie am Ludgeriplatz, Münster
Herz-Jesu-Krankenhaus Hiltrup GmbH, Klinik für Neurologie mit klinischer Neurophysiologie, Münster
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dres. Wiborg, Kramer, Brummer, Neu-Ulm
Praxis Dr Bergmann & Kollegen, Praxis für Neurologie und Psychotherapie, Neuburg
Ruppiner Kliniken GmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, MS-Ambulanz, Neuruppin
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr Rieth, Saur, Dr Pfister, Neusäß
Nervenärztliche Gemeinschaftspraxis Nürnberg, Nürnberg
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dres. Uhlig/Windsheimer, Nürnberg
Praxis Dres. Schlüter, Beckmann, Berufsausübungsgemeinschaft, Öhringen
Neurologie an der Hase, Holger Lorenzen, Dr med. Edzard Ites, Stephan Ulf Sylvester, Jens Gläscher, Dr med. Elisabeth Rehkopf, Osnabrück
MVZ für Neurologie der Paracelsus-Klinik Osnabrück, Osnabrück
Praxis Dr med. Christoph Schenk, Osnabrück
Klinikum Osnabrück GmbH, Neurologische Klinik, Osnabrück
Praxis Dr Roth & Partner, Facharzt für Nervenheilkunde, Ostfildern
St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH Paderborn, Neurologische Klinik, Paderborn
Neurozentrum Peine, Peine
Facharztpraxis für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, Andreas Stockert und Dr Claudia Rettenmayr, Pforzheim
St Josefs-Krankenhaus Potsdam, Klinik für Neurologie, Potsdam
Praxis Dr Altmann, Facharzt für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, Potsdam
Neurozentrum Ravensburg, Dres. Dieterle/Kunz, Ravensburg
Neurologische Praxis, Maier-Janson/Friedrich, Ravensburg
Knappschaftskrankenhaus Recklinghausen, Klinik für Neurologie und Klinische Neurophysiologie, Recklinghausen
Neurologische Praxis Dr Wendelin Kyrill Blersch, Regensburg
Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie am Bezirksklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg
Sächsisches Krankenhaus f. Psychiatrie u. Neurologie, Klinik für Neurologie, Rodewisch
Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Rostock
Immanuel-Klinik-Rüdersdorf, MS-Ambulanz, Rüdersdorf
ZNS Südpfalz – Zentrum für Nervensystem & Seele, Rülzheim
Nordwest-Krankenhaus Sanderbusch, Neurologie, Sande
Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum Schlüchtern, Schlüchtern
Diakonie-Klinikum Schwäbisch Hall gGmbH, Neurologische Klinik, MS-Ambulanz, Schwäbisch Hall
Hephata-Klinik, Neurologie, Schwalmstadt
Fachklinik für Neurologie Dietenbronn GmbH, Akademisches Krankenhaus der Universität Ulm, Schwendi
HELIOS Kliniken Schwerin, Neurologische Klinik, Schwerin
Berufsausübungsgemeinschaft Prof. Wagner & Dr Kaltenmaier, Schwetzingen
Asklepios Kliniken Schildautal Seesen, Klinik für Neurologische Rehabilitation, Seesen
Asklepios Kliniken Schildautal, Klinik für Neurologie, Seesen
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr Lamberty, Dr Schulz, Dr Lindemuth, G. Hübner, Albertus Magnus Zentrum, Siegen
Neurologische Praxis, MVZ Siegerlandzentrum, Siegen
E/M/S/A, Zentrum für Neurologie / Psychiatrie / Neuroradiologie, Singen
MediClin Klinikum Soltau, Soltau
Neurologische Praxisgemeinschaft, Sprockhövel
MediClin Bosenberg Kliniken, St Wendel
Asklepios Fachklinikum Stadtroda, Klinik für Neurologie, Stadtroda
ZNS Straubing, Straubing
Klinikum Stuttgart Katharinenhospital, Neurologische Klinik, Neurozentrum, Stuttgart
Dres. med. M. Appy, W. Molt, Prof. A. Melms & Kollegen, Berufsausübungsgemeinschaft, Stuttgart
mind mvz GmbH, Stuttgart
Neurozentrum Sophienstrasse, Dr Herbst, Dr Wannenmacher, Dr Hartmann, Stuttgart
Neurologische und psychiatrische Praxis Dr Kowalik, Stuttgart
Neurologisch-Psychiatrische Praxis Dr Susanne Weber, Stuttgart
Knappschaftskrankenhaus Sulzbach, Neurologische Klinik, Sulzbach/Saar
Sauerlandklinik Hachen, Neurologische Spezialklinik Multiple Sklerose, Sundern
Asklepios Fachklinikum Teupitz, Neurologische Klinik, Teupitz
Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Abteilung für Neurologie und Neurophysiologie, Trier
GFO Kliniken Troisdorf, Fachabteilung Neurologie, Troisdorf
Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Zentrum für Neurologie, Tübingen
Helios Klinikum Uelzen GmbH, Uelzen
Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Ulm
Neuropraxis München Süd, Unterhaching
Westerwaldklinik Waldbreitbach gGmbH, Rehabilitationszentrum für Neurologie und Neurologische Psychosomatik, Waldbreitbach
Dr med. Sabine Gschrey & Dr med. Gerhard Gschrey, Ärzte für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, Wendlingen
Klinikum St Georg/Fachkrankenhaus Hubertusburg, Klinik für Neurologie und Neurologische Intensivmedizin, Wermsdorf
Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr Springub/Schwarz, Westerstede
Ammerland-Klinik GmbH, Klinik für Neurologie, Westerstede
DKD HELIOS Klinik Wiesbaden, Fachbereich Neurologie, Wiesbaden
MEDIAN Klinik Wilhelmshaven, Fachklinik für Orthopädie und Neurologie, Wilhelmshaven
Neurologisch-Psychiatrische Gemeinschaftspraxis Wolfenbüttel, Wolfenbüttel
Neurologische Praxis am Klieversberg, Wolfsburg
Praxis Dr med. J. D. Seybold, Würzburg
Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Würzburg
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statement: PSR received research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche; consultancy or speaker fees from Almirall, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Sandoz. None of them resulted in a conflict of interest regarding the submitted work. DE declares no conflict of interest. KH has received speakingfees, travel support, and research honoraria from Biogen,Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Bayer Healthcare, MerckSerono, and Roche. None resulted in a conflict of interest. JH declares no conflict of interest to the submitted work. DP received research grants from Sandoz, Schering, Biogen; speaker fees from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme and Teva. None of them resulted in a conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript. Alexander Stahmann reports institutional Grants for the enhancement of the German MS-Register by Biogen, Celgene, Merck and Novartis, all outside this study. UKZ received speaker fees from Alexion, Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme and Teva. None of them resulted in a conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript.
Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The German MS Registry by the German MS Society was initiated and funded by the German MS Foundation and the German MS Society in 2001. It is operated by a not-for-profit company, the MSFP. In 2018, the MSFP received a grant from Merck and Novartis to support the extension of the registry and the implementation of EMA requirements. In 2019, Biogen and Celgene joined the multi-stakeholder founding approach to support the registry’s operation and to allow the collection and reporting of data required as part of the EMA-minimal data set. None of the industry funding results in restrictions to publish data nor have the supporters influence on the content this manuscript.
ORCID iD: Paulus Stefan Rommer
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5209-6647
Contributor Information
Paulus Stefan Rommer, Department of Neurology, Neuroimmunological Section, University of Rostock, Gehlsheimer Straße 20, Rostock, 18147, Germany; Department of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
David Ellenberger, German MS-Register by the German MS Society, MS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH, Hannover, Germany.
Kerstin Hellwig, Department of Neurology, Katholisches Klinikum Bochum, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Judith Haas, Centre for Multiple Sclerosis, Jewish Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Dieter Pöhlau, Department of Neurology, German Red Cross-Kamillus-Clinic, Asbach, Germany.
Alexander Stahmann, German MS-Register by the German MS Society, MS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH, Hannover, Germany.
Uwe Klaus Zettl, Department of Neurology, Neuroimmunological Section, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
References
- 1. Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 169–180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Rommer PS, Weber MS, Illes Z, et al. Editorial: multiple sclerosis - from bench to bedside: currents insights into pathophysiological concepts and their potential impact on patients. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Zettl UK, Stüve O, Patejdl R. Immune-mediated CNS diseases: a review on nosological classification and clinical features. Autoimmun Rev 2012; 11: 167–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 2014; 83: 278–286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Thompson AJ, Baranzini SE, Geurts J, et al. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2018; 391: 1622–1636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Boström I, Stawiarz L, Landtblom A-M. Sex ratio of multiple sclerosis in the National Swedish MS register (SMSreg). Mult Scler 2013; 19: 46–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Koch-Henriksen N, Sørensen PS. The changing demographic pattern of multiple sclerosis epidemiology. Lancet Neurol 2010; 9: 520–532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Alonso A, Hernán MA. Temporal trends in the incidence of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Neurology 2008; 71: 129–135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Orton S-M, Herrera BM, Yee IM, et al. Sex ratio of multiple sclerosis in Canada: a longitudinal study. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 932–936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bentzen J, Flachs EM, Stenager E, et al. Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Denmark 1950–2005. Mult Scler 2010; 16: 520–525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Koch-Henriksen N, Thygesen LC, Stenager E, et al. Incidence of MS has increased markedly over six decades in Denmark particularly with late onset and in women. Neurology 2018; 90: e1954–e1963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Miller DH, Leary SM. Primary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 903–912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Rommer PS, Eichstädt K, Ellenberger D, et al. Symptomatology and symptomatic treatment in multiple sclerosis: results from a nationwide MS registry. Mult Scler 2019; 25: 1641–1652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Lassmann H. Pathogenic mechanisms associated with different clinical courses of multiple sclerosis. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 3116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Flachenecker P, Zettl UK, Götze U, et al. [MS registry in Germany–design and first results of the pilot phase]. Nervenarzt 2005; 76: 967–975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Marck CH, De Livera AM, Weiland TJ, et al. Pain in people with multiple sclerosis: associations with modifiable lifestyle factors, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and mental health quality of life. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Bove R, Chitnis T. Sexual disparities in the incidence and course of MS. Clin Immunol 2013; 149: 201–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Dunn SE, Gunde E, Lee H. Sex-based differences in multiple sclerosis (MS): part II: rising incidence of multiple sclerosis in women and the vulnerability of men to progression of this disease. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2015; 26: 57–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Voskuhl RR, Gold SM. Sex-related factors in multiple sclerosis susceptibility and progression. Nat Rev Neurol 2012; 8: 255–263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Solaro C, Trabucco E, Signori A, et al. Depressive symptoms correlate with disability and disease course in multiple sclerosis patients: an Italian multi-center study using the beck depression inventory. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Mohammadi K, Rahnama P, Montazeri A. Prevalence and risk factors for depression in women with multiple sclerosis: a study from Iran. Ann Gen Psychiatry 2015; 14: 29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Disanto G, Ramagopalan SV. On the sex ratio of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2013; 19: 3–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Boström I, Stawiarz L, Landtblom A-M. Age-specific sex ratio of multiple sclerosis in the National Swedish MS register (SMSreg). Mult Scler 2014; 20: 513–514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Avila M, Bansal A, Culberson J, et al. The role of sex hormones in multiple sclerosis. Eur Neurol 2018; 80: 93–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Harbo HF, Gold R, Tintoré M. Sex and gender issues in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2013; 6: 237–248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Gubbels Bupp MR, Potluri T, Fink AL, et al. The confluence of sex hormones and aging on immunity. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 1269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Akkermann R, Beyer F, Küry P. Heterogeneous populations of neural stem cells contribute to myelin repair. Neural Regen Res 2017; 12: 509–517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kremer D, Göttle P, Flores-Rivera J, et al. Remyelination in multiple sclerosis: from concept to clinical trials. Curr Opin Neurol 2019; 32: 378–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Azcoitia I, Barreto GE, Garcia-Segura LM. Molecular mechanisms and cellular events involved in the neuroprotective actions of estradiol. Analysis of sex differences. Front Neuroendocrinol 2019; 55: 100787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Carotenuto A, Wilson H, Giordano B, et al. Impaired connectivity within neuromodulatory networks in multiple sclerosis and clinical implications. J Neurol 2020; 267: 2042–2053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Rehbein E, Hornung J, Sundström Poromaa I, et al. Shaping of the female human brain by sex hormones - a review. Neuroendocrinology. Epub ahead of print 11 March 2020. DOI: 10.1159/000507083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Kawachi I, Lassmann H. Neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88: 137–145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Mahad DH, Trapp BD, Lassmann H. Pathological mechanisms in progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14: 183–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Frischer JM, Weigand SD, Guo Y, et al. Clinical and pathological insights into the dynamic nature of the white matter multiple sclerosis plaque. Ann Neurol 2015; 78: 710–721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Masi AT, Kaslow RA. Sex effects in systemic lupus erythematosus. A clue to pathogenesis. Arthritis Rheum 1978; 21: 480–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Maselli A, Conti F, Alessandri C, et al. Low expression of estrogen receptor β in T lymphocytes and high serum levels of anti-estrogen receptor α antibodies impact disease activity in female patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Biol Sex Differ 2016; 7: 3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Rider V, Abdou NI, Kimler BF, et al. Gender bias in human systemic lupus erythematosus: a problem of steroid receptor action? Front Immunol 2018; 9: 611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Confavreux C, Hutchinson M, Hours MM, et al. Rate of pregnancy-related relapse in multiple sclerosis. Pregnancy in multiple sclerosis group. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 285–291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Winkelmann A, Rommer PS, Hecker M, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in multiple sclerosis: a prospective, rater-blinded analysis of relapse rates during pregnancy and the postnatal period. CNS Neurosci Ther 2019; 25: 78–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Lateef A, Petri M. Managing lupus patients during pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2013; 27: 435–447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Voskuhl RR, Palaszynski K. Sex hormones in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis: implications for multiple sclerosis. Neuroscientist 2001; 7: 258–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Tsokos GC, Lo MS, Costa Reis P, et al. New insights into the immunopathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2016; 12: 716–730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Barbour C, Kosa P, Komori M, et al. Molecular-based diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and its progressive stage. Ann Neurol 2017; 82: 795–812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Ysrraelit MC, Correale J. Impact of sex hormones on immune function and multiple sclerosis development. Immunology 2019; 156: 9–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]




