Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review reveals EBV's role in MS and potential therapeutic strategies targeting EBV.
Background/Objectives: Multiple sclerosis (MS) constitutes a chronic autoimmune, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative disease, with dissemination in space and time, warranting diagnosis. Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is increasingly recognized as a key contributor to MS pathogenesis. This review summarizes evidence on EBV-related mechanisms of currently approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and emerging EBV-directed therapeutic strategies in MS. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed. Original English-language studies addressing EBV-related therapeutic mechanisms or EBV-targeted interventions in MS were included; 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Current DMTs may influence EBV-related immunity through diverse mechanisms, including modulation of B-cell subsets, altered lymphocyte trafficking, reduction in EBV-specific humoral responses, and restoration of T-cell surveillance. Monoclonal antibody-based therapies, particularly anti-CD20 agents and natalizumab, appear to affect the EBV–B-cell–immune axis through distinct but complementary mechanisms. Other interventions, including interferons, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and vitamin D supplementation, may also modulate EBV-specific cellular or humoral responses, although the magnitude and durability of these effects vary. Emerging EBV-directed approaches, including EBV-specific T-cell therapy, inhibition of specific proteins, modulation of autophagy, and cholesterol-dependent viral latency, provide additional support for targeting EBV-related pathways in MS. Conclusions: The therapeutic efficacy of DMTs in MS may extend beyond nonspecific immunomodulation and involve partial disruption of EBV-driven immune persistence. Further controlled studies are required to validate EBV-related biomarkers and determine whether direct EBV-targeted therapies can provide sustained clinical benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bartczak et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: