4.6 Article

Risk factors of multiple system in french atrophy:: A case-control study patients

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 797-803

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/mds.21857

关键词

multiple system atrophy; epidemiology; environmental exposure; anti-inflammatory agents; nonsteroidal; occupation; food habits

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare sporadic progressive neurodegenerative disorder. MSA risk factors are poorly known. The objectives of this case-control study were to study environmental risk factors associated with MSA. Cases were recruited through five French referral centers. Controls matched for age, gender, and living area were recruited from healthy relatives of inpatients free of any parkinsonian syndrome of the same centers. Subjects were interviewed about exposure to environmental factors (pesticides, solvents, etc.), occupation and food habits, and use of anti-inflammatory drugs. Odds ratios and 95% confident intervals (OR [95% CI]) were computed using conditional logistic regression. Seventy-one cases and 71 matched controls were included. Low education level was more frequent in cases than in controls. Controls drank more alcohol than did cases (OR = 0.5 [0.2-1.1]) and the risk of MSA decreased with increasing alcohol consumption (P = 0.04). Controls ate fish and sea food more often and drank more tea than cases. Aspirin intake was more frequent among controls than did cases (OR = 0.5 [0.2-1.0]) and the risk of MSA decreased with the frequency of intake (P = 0.0002). MSA was not associated to exposure to pesticides, solvents, and other toxics neither to occupations, except plant and machine operators and assemblers (OR = 10.0 [2.1-47.5]) where the risk of MSA increased with number of years in this occupation (P = 0.004). This case-control study provided new findings about risk factors of MSA. On another hand, it did not confirm the previously reported association between MSA and exposure to pesticides. (C) 2008 Movement Disorder Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据