4.3 Article

Association of Gulf War Illness with Characteristics in Deployed vs. Non-Deployed Gulf War Era Veterans in the Cooperative Studies Program 2006/Million Veteran Program 029 Cohort: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010258

关键词

gulf war; gulf war illness; chronic multisymptom illness; post-deployment health surveys; health outcomes; veteran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that Gulf War Illness (GWI) is highly prevalent among veterans deployed to the 1990-1991 Gulf War, presenting as a chronic multisymptom illness with a complex and uncertain etiology and pathophysiology. The study also revealed that GWI phenotypes varied by demographic and military characteristics.
Gulf War Illness (GWI), a chronic multisymptom illness with a complex and uncertain etiology and pathophysiology, is highly prevalent among veterans deployed to the 1990-1991 GW. We examined how GWI phenotypes varied by demographic and military characteristics among GW-era veterans. Data were from the VA's Cooperative Studies Program 2006/Million Veteran Program (MVP) 029 cohort, Genomics of GWI. From June 2018 to March 2019, 109,976 MVP enrollees (out of a total of over 676,000) were contacted to participate in the 1990-1991 GW-era Survey. Of 109,976 eligible participants, 45,169 (41.1%) responded to the 2018-2019 survey, 35,902 respondents met study inclusion criteria, 13,107 deployed to the GW theater. GWI phenotypes were derived from Kansas (KS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) GWI definitions: (a) KS Symptoms (KS Sym+), (b) KS GWI (met symptom criteria and without exclusionary health conditions) [KS GWI: Sym+/Dx-], (c) CDC GWI and (d) CDC GWI Severe. The prevalence of each phenotype was 67.1% KS Sym+, 21.5% KS Sym+/Dx-, 81.1% CDC GWI, and 18.6% CDC GWI severe. These findings affirm the persistent presence of GWI among GW veterans providing a foundation for further exploration of biological and environmental underpinnings of this condition.

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

4.3
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