4.7 Article

Association of alcohol use disorders with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a Swedish national cohort study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 270-275

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.12667

关键词

alcohol use disorders; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; incidence

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (in Swedish: Forte) [2013-1836]
  3. Region Skane
  4. Swedish Freemasons Foundation
  5. Fredrik och Ingrid Thurings stiftelse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purposeCigarette smoking is associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but the association between alcohol consumption and ALS is not clear. Our aim was to clarify this using a national cohort study design in Sweden. MethodsIndividuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) were identified from several nationwide registers, and they were linked to the Swedish Hospital Discharge and Outpatients Registers to identify the incidence of ALS. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were used to examine the risk of ALS amongst individuals with AUDs compared to those without AUDs. ResultsA total of 7965 patients were diagnosed with ALS during the study period 1973-2010. The incidence of ALS amongst individuals with AUD was lower compared to individuals without AUD with an overall SIR of 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.45-0.63). The study population was further stratified by gender, educational attainment, birth country, follow-up period and a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (as a proxy for smoking), and the observed inverse association between AUD and ALS was consistent for all the stratified analyses. ConclusionsIn this follow-up study, heavy alcohol consumption, as shown by registration for AUD, was inversely associated with the incidence of ALS. However, further studies are needed to disentangle the contribution of other potential confounding factors on the observed association. Click to view the accompanying paper in this issue.

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