4.7 Article

Anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of Parkinson disease A meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 995-1002

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181d5a4a3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [T32 AG000158]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [T32 ES007069]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Objective: Anti-inflammatory drugs may prevent Parkinson disease (PD) by inhibiting a putative underlying neuroinflammatory process. We tested the hypothesis that anti-inflammatory drugs reduce PD incidence and that there are differential effects by type of anti-inflammatory, duration of use, or intensity of use. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies that reported risk of PD associated with anti-inflammatory medications. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool results across studies for each type of anti-inflammatory drug. Stratified meta-analyses were used to assess duration-and intensity-response. Results: Seven studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria, all of which reported associations between nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and PD, 6 of which reported on aspirin, and 2 of which reported on acetaminophen. Overall, a 15% reduction in PD incidence was observed among users of nonaspirin NSAIDS (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.94), with a similar effect observed for ibuprofen use. The protective effect of nonaspirin NSAIDs was more pronounced among regular users (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.89) and long-term users (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.07). No protective effect was observed for aspirin (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.27) or acetaminophen (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). Sensitivity analyses found results to be robust. Conclusions: There may be a protective effect of nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use on risk of Parkinson disease (PD) consistent with a possible neuroinflammatory pathway in PD pathogenesis. Neurology (R) 2010;74:995-1002

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

4.7
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