Heart risk tools may miss risks for people with MS

Credibility

Interest

Share:2 min read

Key Takeaway

Common heart-and-blood-vessel risk calculators can miss or undercount risk for people with MS, and one simple calculator (FRS-BMI) worked better after adjusting for MS.

What They Found

Researchers checked five popular tools that predict heart and blood vessel problems using health records from England between 1987 and 2023. Most tools did not predict risk well for people with MS — they often missed people who later had heart or blood vessel events. The version of the Framingham score that uses Body Mass Index (FRS-BMI) kept its important risk pieces and could be adjusted (recalibrated) to work better for people with MS. After recalibration, FRS-BMI showed clearer separation between people who did and did not have events and matched observed outcomes more closely. When tested in a different group of people with MS, the improved FRS-BMI helped a little, but it was not a perfect solution for everyone.

Who Should Care and Why

People with MS should care because these tools help doctors decide who might need extra prevention, like medicines or lifestyle changes to lower heart risk. Caregivers and family should know that some common calculators may undercount risk in MS, so they can ask doctors whether MS was considered when assessing heart health. Doctors and nurses who treat MS patients should consider that using a standard tool alone could miss risk and should look for tools adjusted for MS or use clinical judgment. Think of a tool made for most people like a shoe size chart: it fits many, but people with MS may need a slightly different size or a custom fit. This matters in daily life because catching high heart risk earlier can lead to changes like healthier eating, more activity, or medicines that lower the chance of heart attacks or strokes.

Important Considerations

This study used large health records but is observational, which means it shows patterns, not cause-and-effect, and relies on how well events were recorded. Even the improved FRS-BMI was only a modest improvement when tested in a different group, so it is not a perfect fix for everyone with MS. The authors say we still need MS-specific risk tools built from data on people with MS to get the most accurate predictions.

AI-generated summary — for informational purposes only, not medical advice

Categories:

MS Diagnostics MS Progression Living with MS

Article Topics:

Multiple sclerosiscardiovascularpopulation-based studyrecalibrationriskvascular

Whether you’ve recently been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) or are seeking to broaden your understanding of this complex, neurodegenerative disease, navigating the latest research can feel overwhelming. Studies published in respected medical journals like Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) often range from early-stage, exploratory work to advanced clinical trials. These evidence-based findings help shape new disease-modifying therapies, guide symptom management techniques, and deepen our knowledge of MS progression.

However, not all research is created equal. Some clinical research studies may have smaller sample sizes, evolving methodologies, or limitations that warrant careful interpretation. For a more comprehensive, accurate understanding, we recommend reviewing the original source material—accessible via the More Details section above—and consulting with healthcare professionals who specialize in MS care.

By presenting a wide range of MS-focused studies—spanning cutting-edge treatments, emerging therapies, and established best practices—we aim to empower patients, caregivers, and clinicians to stay informed and make well-informed decisions when managing Multiple Sclerosis.

Back to News