4.6 Article

Smoking, Alcohol Consumption, and the Risk of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Population-based Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 176, Issue 3, Pages 233-239

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws015

Keywords

alcohol drinking; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; smoking

Funding

  1. Prinses Beatrix Fonds
  2. Netherlands ALS Foundation
  3. European Community

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Smoking has been posited as a possible risk factor for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but large population-based studies of patients with incident disease are still needed. The authors performed a population-based case-control study in the Netherlands between 2006 and 2009, including 494 patients with incident ALS and 1,599 controls. To prove the relevance of population-based incidence cohorts in case-control studies, the authors compared results with those from cohorts including patients with prevalent ALS and referral patients. Subjects were sent a questionnaire. Multivariate analyses showed an increased risk of ALS among current smokers (odds ratio 1.38, 95 confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.88) in the incident patient group only. Cox regression models showed that current smoking was also independently associated with shorter survival (hazard ratio 1.51, 95 CI: 1.07, 2.15), explaining the lack of association in the prevalent and referral patient groups. Current alcohol consumption was associated with a reduced risk of ALS (incident patient group: odds ratio 0.52, 95 CI: 0.40, 0.75). These findings indicate that current smoking is associated with an increased risk of ALS, as well as a worse prognosis, and alcohol consumption is associated with a reduced risk of ALS, further corroborating the role of lifestyle factors in the pathogenesis of ALS. The importance of population-based incident patient cohorts in identifying risk factors is highlighted by this study.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available