Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune inflammatory disease affecting the central nervous system leading to demyelination. MS in the pediatric population is rare, but has been shown to lead to significant disability over the duration of the disease. As we have learned more about pediatric MS, there has been a development of improved diagnostic criteria leading to earlier diagnosis, earlier initiation of disease-modifying therapies (DMT), and an increasing number of DMT used in the treatment of pediatric MS. Over time, treatment with DMT has trended towards the initiation of higher efficacy treatment at time of diagnosis to help prevent further disease progression and accrual of disability over time, and there is evidence in current literature that supports this change in treatment patterns. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge in diagnosis, treatment, and clinical outcomes in pediatric MS.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (CNS). Disease-modifying therapies (DMT) targeting inflammation have been shown to reduce disease activity in patients with relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS). The current therapeutic challenge is to find an effective treatment to halt disease progression and reverse established neural damage. Stem cell-based therapies have emerged to address this dilemma. Several types of stem cells have been considered for clinical use, such as autologous hematopoietic (aHSC), mesenchymal (MSC), neuronal (NSC), human embryonic (hESC), and induced pluripotent (iPSC) stem cells. There is convincing evidence that immunoablation followed by hematopoietic therapy (aHSCT) has a high efficacy for suppressing inflammatory MS activity and improving neurological disability in patients with RRMS. In addition, MSC therapy may be a safe and tolerable treatment, but its clinical value is still under evaluation. Various studies have shown early promising results with other cellular therapies for CNS repair and decreasing inflammation. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge and limitations of different stem cell-based therapies for the treatment of patients with MS.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an acquired demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS). Historically, research on MS has focused on White persons with MS. This preponderance of representation has important possible implications for minority populations with MS, from developing effective therapeutic agents to understanding the role of unique constellations of social determinants of health. A growing body of literature involving persons of historically underrepresented races and ethnicities in the field of multiple sclerosis is assembling. Our purpose in this narrative review is to highlight two populations in the United States: Black and Hispanic persons with multiple sclerosis. We will review the current understanding about the patterns of disease presentation, genetic considerations, response to treatment, roles of social determinants of health, and healthcare utilization. In addition, we explore future directions of inquiry as well as practical methods of meeting these challenges.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects more than 2 million people worldwide. Increasing knowledge about MS in different populations has advanced our understanding of disease epidemiology and variation in the natural history of MS among White and minority populations. In addition to differences in incidence, African American (AA) and Hispanic patients have greater disease burden and disability in earlier stages of disease compared to White patients. To further characterize MS in AA and Hispanic populations, we conducted a retrospective chart analysis of 112 patients treated at an MS center in Houston, Texas. Here, we describe similarities and differences in clinical presentation, MRI findings, treatment regimens, disability progression, and relapse rate. While we found several similarities between the groups regarding mean age, disability severity, and degree of brain atrophy at diagnosis, we also describe a few divergences. Interestingly, we found that patients who were evaluated by a neurologist at symptom onset had significantly decreased odds of greater disability [defined as Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) > 4.5] at last presentation compared to patients who were not evaluated by a neurologist (OR: 0.04, 95% CI: 0.16–0.9). We also found that active smokers had significantly increased odds of greater disability both at diagnosis and at last clinical encounter compared to nonsmokers (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.10–7.10, OR= 2.44, 95% CI: 1.35–6.12, p = 0.01, respectively). Additionally, we observed significant differences in treatment adherence between groups. Assessment of the degree of brain atrophy and progression over time, along with an enumeration of T1, T2, and gadolinium-enhancing brain lesions, did not reveal differences across groups.