3.8 Review

Lower prevalence of multiple sclerosis in First Nations Canadians

期刊

NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 33-39

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000418

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Sciences Centre Foundation
  2. Waugh Family Chair in Multiple Sclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We compared the incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS) between First Nations (FN) and non-FN populations in Manitoba. Methods We applied previously validated algorithms to population-based administrative (health claims) data from Manitoba, Canada, to identify all persons with MS from 1984 to 2011. We identified FN individuals using the Municipality of Registration field held at Manitoba Health. We compared the incidence and prevalence of MS between the FN and non-FN populations using negative binomial models. Results From 1984 to 2011, 5,738 persons had MS, of whom 64 (1.1%) were of FN ethnicity. The average annual incidence rate per 100,000 population was 8.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.98-11.1) in the FN population and 15.7 (95% CI 15.1-16.3) in the non-FN population (incidence rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.38-0.71). In 1984, the crude prevalence of MS per 100,000 population was 35.8 (95% CI 14.9-86.1) in the FN population and 113.3 (95% CI 106.3-120.8) in the non-FN population. Between 1984 and 2011, the age-standardized prevalence of MS increased by 351% to 188.5 (95% CI 146.6-230.4) in the FN population. In contrast, the prevalence ofMS per 100,000 general population increased by 225%-418.4% (95% CI 405.8-431.0). Conclusions The incidence and prevalence of MS are twofold lower in the FN population than the non-FN population. Nonetheless, the prevalence of MS in FN Manitobans is higher than in other indigenous populations outside Canada. Given reports of more rapid disability progression among FN Canadians with MS, and the rising prevalence of MS in this population, attention should be directed to the needs of this population.

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

3.8
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