Cardiovascular Risk/Benefit Profile of MHT.

Background and Objectives: Data emerging from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study point toward an association between menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and cardiovascular (CV) risk. However, post hoc subgroup analyses stratifying participants according to their age and time since menopause, have opened the way to a better understanding of the relationship between estrogen and CV risk. The aim of this review was to revise the current literature and evaluate the CV risk or benefit following administration of MHT considering several factors such as MHT timing, dose, route of administration, and formulation. Materials and Methods: An electronic databases search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, congress abstracts, and Grey literature (Google Scholar; British Library) was performed, with the date range from each database's inception until June 2019. All the studies evaluating MHT and cardiovascular risk, including thromboembolism or stroke, were selected. Results: Timing of MHT initiation was shown to be a critical factor in CV risk assessment. In concordance with the "timing hypothesis", healthy symptomatic women who initiated MHT when aged younger than 60 years, or who were within 10 years of menopause onset, have demonstrated a reduction in both coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and all-cause mortality. In particular, MHT therapy was associated with improvement of subclinical signs of atherosclerosis. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is reduced when low doses of oral estrogen are used. Moreover, transdermal hormonal application significantly reduces CV risk compared with oral administration. MHT impact on the CV system is influenced by either factors inherent to the specific regimen, or factors inherent to the specific patient. Hence, individualization of care is necessary. Conclusion: CV risk calculation should be considered by clinicians in order to exclude patients with high CV risk, in whom MHT is contraindicated. Assessing risks and benefits in a patient-centered approach according to individual's features, health status, and personal preferences is important in order to realize a safe and effective treatment.

Dual positivity for anti-MOG and oligoclonal bands: Unveiling unique clinical profiles and implications.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing between MOG-associated disease (MOGAD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) presents a considerable challenge, as there are instances of overlapping clinical presentations. This complexity is further magnified in cases where patients concurrently exhibit both anti-myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (anti-MOG) positivity and detectable oligoclonal bands (OCBs) This retrospective study investigates the clinical and imaging attributes of dual-positive patients, those with both anti-MOG positivity and OCBs, The study aims to show potential areas of overlap between multiple sclerosis (MS) and MOGAD. METHODS: Utilizing data gathered from three medical centers, we evaluated a cohort of 45 patients, stratifying them into two groups: those exclusively positive for anti-MOG antibodies and those displaying dual positivity. Our analysis encompassed a wide range of clinical and imaging parameters. The statistical techniques employed comprised Fisher's Exact Test along with Benjamini-Hochberg correction to ensure robustness of the findings. RESULTS: The study involved 45 patients with anti-MOG antibodies; 30 exhibited isolated anti-MOG positivity without OCBs, while 15 were dual-positive. The first group's average age was 10±7 years, compared to 28±17 years in the double-positive group (p = 0.001). CSF analysis showed no significant differences in pleocytosis, protein levels, or opening pressure between the groups. In the exclusive anti-MOG positivity cohort, 9 out of 15 patients received IVIG treatment; a larger subgroup with dual positivity chose anti-CD20 treatment. Notably, papilledema incidence was higher in the single-positive group (p = 0.014). Optic nerve enhancement (p = 0.0038) and nerve thickening (p = 0.0017) were markedly elevated in the single-positive population, with a trend towards pre-chiasmatic lesions (p = 0.06). Double-positive cases exhibited more polyfocal presentation (p = 0.013) and higher attacks per case (p = 0.002, HR=10.2, 95 % CI: 2.19 to 49.23). The double-positive group had more brain lesions (p = 0.0063) but no significant distinctions in other aspects. CONCLUSION: The results emphasize the challenges inherent in differentiating between MS and a more MOGAD. While the data suggest two plausible scenarios-either falling within the spectrum of MS or representing an intensified MOGAD-we recognize the need for stronger evidence to definitively classify these instances. This study underscores the imperative for thorough investigations to ascertain whether these cases align with the MS spectrum or denote an inflammatory variant of MOGAD.