4.4 Article

Shift work influences multiple sclerosis risk

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages 1195-1199

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458514563592

Keywords

Adolescence; circadian rhythm; immunology; multiple sclerosis; risk factors; shift work; sleep deprivation; work schedule

Funding

  1. Swedish Medical Research Council
  2. Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  4. AFA Foundation
  5. Swedish Brain Foundation
  6. Swedish Association for Persons with Neurological Disabilities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: An association between working shift at a young age and subsequent risk for multiple sclerosis (MS) has been observed. Objective: To investigate whether this finding could be replicated, and to further explore the influence of age at first exposure to shift work. Methods: Using a Swedish population-based, case-control study (2337 cases and 4904 controls), the incidence of MS among subjects whom had worked shifts was compared with that of those whom had not, by calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by means of logistic regression. Results: The OR of developing MS was 1.5 (95% CI 1.2-1.8) among those whom started working shifts before age 20, whereas a less pronounced association was observed among those whom started working shifts at age 20 or later (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.4). The effect of shift work was more pronounced among subjects whom had been exposed at a young age, regardless of the duration between the start of shift work and disease onset. Conclusion: Some aspects of adolescence seem to be of great importance, regarding the impact of shift work on MS risk. Circadian disruption and sleep deprivation may contribute towards explaining the association; however, the exact mechanisms behind our observations remain to be elucidated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available