| Literature DB >> 19525327 |
Matthew Anthony Kirkman1, Patrick Yu-Wai-Man, Alex Korsten, Miriam Leonhardt, Konstantin Dimitriadis, Ireneaus F De Coo, Thomas Klopstock, Patrick Francis Chinnery.
Abstract
Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) is a genetic disorder primarily due to mutations of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Environmental factors are thought to precipitate the visual failure and explain the marked incomplete penetrance of LHON, but previous small studies have failed to confirm this to be the case. LHON has no treatment, so identifying environmental triggers is the key to disease prevention, whilst potentially revealing new mechanisms amenable to therapeutic manipulation. To address this issue, we conducted a large, multicentre epidemiological study of 196 affected and 206 unaffected carriers from 125 LHON pedigrees known to harbour one of the three primary pathogenic mtDNA mutations: m.3460G>A, m.11778G>A and m.14484T>C. A comprehensive history of exposure to smoking, alcohol and other putative environmental insults was collected using a structured questionnaire. We identified a strong and consistent association between visual loss and smoking, independent of gender and alcohol intake, leading to a clinical penetrance of 93% in men who smoked. There was a trend towards increased visual failure with alcohol, but only with a heavy intake. Based on these findings, asymptomatic carriers of a LHON mtDNA mutation should be strongly advised not to smoke and to moderate their alcohol intake.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19525327 PMCID: PMC2732267 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awp158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain ISSN: 0006-8950 Impact factor: 13.501
Characteristics of the study population
| Affected | Unaffected | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of individuals | ||
| m.11778G>A (%) | 132 (67.3) | 138 (67.0) |
| m.3460G>A (%) | 35 (17.9) | 36 (17.5) |
| m.14484T>C (%) | 29 (14.8) | 32 (15.5) |
| Total | 196 | 206 |
| Sex, | ||
| Male | 146 (74.5) | 60 (29.1) |
| Female | 50 (25.5) | 146 (70.9) |
| Male: female ratio | 2.9 | 0.4 |
| Age at time of study (years) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 43.3 (16.9) | 47.8 (14.9) |
| Range | 13–82 | 14–83 |
| Numbers of tobacco smokers (%) | ||
| Male | 107 (73.3) | 33 (55.0) |
| Female | 27 (54.0) | 75 (51.4) |
| Whole group | 134 (68.4) | 108 (52.4) |
| Numbers of alcohol drinkers (%) | ||
| Male | 139 (95.2) | 57 (95.0) |
| Female | 46 (92.0) | 131 (89.7) |
| Whole group | 185 (94.4) | 188 (91.3) |
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier curve showing disease onset with regard to the three primary LHON mutations (P = 0.946 by log-rank test). Age of onset (years) was defined as the age when the patients first noticed their visual symptoms.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier curve of disease onset for male and female LHON carriers (P < 0.001 by log-rank test).
Levels of tobacco consumption among LHON carriers and ORs for vision loss
| Affected (%) | Unaffected (%) | Mean (SD) | ORs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative smoking consumption (Pack years) | |||||
| None | 62 (31.6) | 98 (47.6) | – | – | – |
| Light smoking | 114 (58.2) | 81 (39.3) | 5.82 (5.45) | 2.23 (1.45–3.41) | <0.001 |
| Heavy smoking | 20 (10.2) | 27 (13.1) | 32.47 (14.63) | 1.17 (0.61–2.27) | 0.735 |
| Whole group | 134 (68.4) | 108 (52.4) | 11.00 (13.28) | 1.96 (1.31–2.95) | 0.001 |
| Maximum smoking consumption | |||||
| None | 62 (31.6) | 98 (47.6) | – | – | – |
| Light smoking | 78 (39.8) | 80 (38.8) | 12.50 (8.82) | 1.54 (0.99–2.41) | 0.071 |
| Heavy smoking | 56 (28.6) | 28 (13.6) | 42.32 (12.84) | 3.16 (1.82–5.50) | <0.001 |
| Whole group | 132 (68.4) | 108 (52.4) | 22.85 (17.60) | 1.96 (1.31–2.95) | 0.001 |
The light and heavy smoking subgroups were based on whether the subject was below or above the 75th percentile values derived from the level of smoking consumption among unaffected LHON carriers.
a Comparison to unaffected LHON carriers who were non-smokers.
b Whole group includes both light and heavy tobacco consumers
c Significant at P < 0.05 level.
Levels of alcohol consumption among LHON carriers and ORs for vision loss
| Affected (%) | Unaffected (%) | Mean (SD) | OR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative alcohol consumption (Drink years) | |||||
| None | 11 (5.6) | 18 (8.8) | – | – | – |
| Light drinking | 137 (69.9) | 141 (68.4) | 16.10 (16.31) | 1.59 (0.72–3.49) | 0.329 |
| Heavy drinking | 48 (24.5) | 47 (22.8) | 132.02 (99.93) | 1.67 (0.71–3.91) | 0.290 |
| Whole group | 185 (94.4) | 188 (91.3) | 45.62 (72.66) | 1.61 (0.74–3.50) | 0.252 |
| Maximum alcohol consumption (Units of alcohol per week) | |||||
| None | 11 (5.6) | 18 (8.8) | – | – | – |
| Light drinking | 85 (43.4) | 138 (67.0) | 8.32 (8.98) | 1.01 (0.45–2.24) | 1.000 |
| Heavy drinking | 100 (51.0) | 50 (24.3) | 90.95 (110.47) | 3.27 (1.44–7.46) | 0.006 |
| Whole group | 185 (94.4) | 188 (91.3) | 41.55 (81.13) | 1.61 (0.74–3.50) | 0.252 |
The light and heavy smoking subgroups were based on whether the subject was below or above the 75th percentile values derived from the level of alcohol consumption among unaffected LHON carriers.
a Comparison to unaffected LHON carriers who were non-drinkers.
b Whole group includes both light and heavy alcohol consumers
c Significant at P < 0.05 level.
Binary logistic regression models for the prediction of vision loss: categorical consumption levels of tobacco and alcohol
| Model 1 (cumulative) | Model 2 (maximum) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | ORs (95% CI) | ORs (95% CI) | ||
| Light smoking | 1.93 (1.08–3.46) | 0.027 | 1.63 (0.88–3.02) | 0.118 |
| Heavy smoking | 3.26 (1.31–8.07) | 0.011 | 2.80 (1.31–5.99) | 0.008 |
| Light drinking | 1.52 (0.50–4.64) | 0.459 | 1.32 (0.44–3.98) | 0.625 |
| Heavy drinking | 2.75 (0.76–10.02) | 0.125 | 2.31 (0.73–7.30) | 0.154 |
a Comparison with non-smokers.
b Comparison with non-drinkers
c Significant at P < 0.05 level. Both models also incorporated the following variables: age, gender and LHON mutation.
Binary logistic regression models for the prediction of vision loss: continuous consumption levels of tobacco and alcohol
| Model 3 (cumulative) | Model 4 (maximum) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | ORs (95% CI) | ORs (95% CI) | ||
| Smoking | 1.04 (1.01–1.06) | 0.004 | 1.02 (1.00–1.04) | 0.021 |
| Alcohol | 1.00 (1.00–1.01) | 0.093 | 1.00 (1.00–1.01) | 0.176 |
a Significant at P < 0.05 level. Both models also incorporated the following variables: age, gender and LHON mutation.
Figure 5Kaplan–Meier curve showing the disease onset according to gender and smoking status. (A) Non-smoking individuals (P < 0.001 by log-rank test). (B) Smoking individuals (P < 0.001 by log-rank test).
Summary of previous studies assessing the role of smoking and alcohol in LHON
| References | Study group | Main findings | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chalmers and Harding, | 50 unrelated, matched controls. | Maximum alcohol and tobacco consumption were analysed at the time of onset of visual symptoms. | Small sample size. |
| 50 affected LHON carriers with one of the three primary LHON mutations: m.11778G>A, | Alcohol, but not tobacco consumption, was significantly higher among affected patients compared with controls. | Cumulative consumption and variation over the years preceding visual loss was not recorded. | |
| Tsao | A North American pedigree of 65 family members harbouring the m.11778G>A mutation | Tobacco consumption was compared between affected and unaffected family members at the two age cut-offs of 25 and 35 years. | Small sample size. |
| All affected carriers were smokers compared with only 25–42% of unaffected carriers. | Cumulative consumption and variation over the years preceding visual loss was not recorded. | ||
| Kerrison | 103 affected and 158 unaffected from 80 LHON pedigrees: m.11778G>A, | Maximum intensity and cumulative consumption of tobacco or alcohol were not associated with an increased risk of visual loss. | Possibility of ascertainment bias since only 56% of postal questionnaires were returned |
| Sadun | A large Brazilian pedigree of 265 family members harbouring the m.11778G>A mutation. | Disease penetrance was significantly higher among smokers but not drinkers. | Actual consumption levels were not quantified, only whether an individual drank or smoked. |