Cargando…
Geographic variations of multiple sclerosis prevalence in France: The latitude gradient is not uniform depending on the socioeconomic status of the studied population
BACKGROUND: In France, two studies analysed multiple sclerosis prevalence nationwide: one was carried out in farmers, and the other one in employees. A south-north gradient of prevalence was found solely in farmers. OBJECTIVE: In order to better describe the latitude gradient in France, which is not...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433399/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28607717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055217316631762 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: In France, two studies analysed multiple sclerosis prevalence nationwide: one was carried out in farmers, and the other one in employees. A south-north gradient of prevalence was found solely in farmers. OBJECTIVE: In order to better describe the latitude gradient in France, which is not uniform depending on the studied population, we assessed whether a gradient exists in another population than farmers and employees: independent workers. The same methods of case ascertainment have been used. METHODS: Altogether 4,165,903 persons insured by the French health insurance scheme for independent workers were included. We searched the database for (a) long term disease status ‘multiple sclerosis’, (b) domicile, (c) gender and (d) age. RESULTS: A total of 4182 cases of multiple sclerosis were registered giving a prevalence of 100.39/100,000. Adjustment by age and sex and spatial smoothing with a Bayesian analysis showed a gradual increase of prevalence from the southwest to the northeast of France. Standardised morbidity ratio was correlated with latitude and longitude (p<0.0001; p = 0.0031; adjusted R(2 )= 0.3038). CONCLUSION: A discrepancy of geographic distribution between farmers and independent workers on the one hand and employees on the other cannot be attributable to environment. Assuming that socioeconomic status by itself is not associated with multiple sclerosis risk, employees’ geographic mobility at adulthood for professional reasons could have interfered with the gradient effect. |
---|