|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français|
We appreciate Dr Grant's comments (1) on our descriptive analysis of multiple sclerosis (MS) prevalence in 3 US communities (2). Respectfully, we disagree that we misinterpreted the findings. As researchers, we are cautious about speculating beyond the presented data or offering policy recommendations that are not sufficiently supported by the findings.
Dr Grant focused his comments on 2 aspects of our manuscript. First, he reiterates the similarities between our findings and those by others (3) but criticizes the absence of a detailed comparison between the 2 data sets. The figure presented by Dr Grant supports our findings of a geographic gradient but does little to extend the argument that UV exposure is protective for MS. Dr Grant's argument is based on replacing 1 exposure variable that is assigned at the population level, latitude, with another correlated variable, UV exposure.
Second, Dr Grant notes that we failed to suggest a mechanism for the link. As indicated in our discussion (2), the precise mechanism whereby UV exposure is inversely associated with MS is unknown, but we agree that mounting evidence suggests that vitamin D synthesis may play a role in this pathway (4). Dr Grant further suggests a seasonal interactive effect between UV-dependent vitamin D exposure and the Epstein-Barr virus. We are unclear as to how our manuscript provides a platform for such an argument in the absence of any individual-level exposure data regarding either factor. Dr Grant further argues that the suspected role of vitamin D as a protective factor for the risk of MS should inform the upcoming Institute of Medicine dietary reference intakes for vitamin D. We do not disagree with this assertion, but we trust the Institute of Medicine will consider all available data, including the risks and benefits of changing vitamin D recommendations, in its reassessment of these dietary guidelines.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above. URLs for nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. URLs do not constitute an endorsement of any organization by CDC or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these URLs.
Suggested citation for this article: Noonan CW, Williamson DM, Henry JP, Wagner L, Marrie RA. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in 3 US Communities: the role of vitamin D [response to letter]. Prev Chronic Dis 2010;7(4). http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/jul/10_0096.htm. Accessed [date].
Curtis W. Noonan, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Dhelia M. Williamson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Judy P. Henry, Texas Department of Health, Austin, Texas.
Laurie Wagner, Texas Department of Health, Austin, Texas.
Ruth Ann Marrie, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.