4.7 Article

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may protect against Parkinson disease

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 69, 期 19, 页码 1836-1842

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000279519.99344.ad

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P01 ES016732, 5P30 ES07048, U54 ES012078, R01 ES010544, U54ES12078, ES10544] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Markers of neuroinflammation, including activated microglia and increased levels of circulating proinflammatory cytokines, have been observed in the brains and CSF of patients with Parkinson disease ( PD). Yet the link between anti-inflammatory agents and PD in humans remains uncertain, despite indications that neuroinflammation may contribute to cell death in the PD brain and experimental evidence of anti-inflammatory agents such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs) exerting neuroprotective effects in animal models. Methods: Using a population-based approach, we studied NSAID use among 293 incident idiopathic PD cases and 286 age-, race-, and gender-matched controls from three rural California counties. Results: Our data suggested a decreased risk of PD among regular ( >= 2 pills/week for at least 1 month) aspirin NSAID users ( OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15). A stronger protective effect was observed for regular nonaspirin NSAID users ( OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.79), particularly those who reported 2 or more years of use ( OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74). The aspirin effect estimates differed by gender, showing a protective effect only in women, especially among long term ( >= 24 months) regular users ( OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.02). Conclusion: Our study contributes to the growing body of literature suggesting a protective role for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs) in Parkinson disease ( PD). Given our results and the biologic plausibility of a neuroprotective function for NSAIDs there is a pressing need for further studies elucidating the protective role such drugs may play in PD.

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