4.5 Article

Differences between Male and Female Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in a Multiethnic Population

Journal

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 759-769

Publisher

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.111061

Keywords

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS; GENDER; MALE LUPUS

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [R01AR043727]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Male patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are thought to be similar to female patients with SLE, but key clinical characteristics may differ. Comparisons were made between male and female patients with SLE in the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. Methods. A total of 1979 patients in the Hopkins Lupus Cohort were included in the analysis. Results. The cohort consisted of 157 men (66.2% white, 33.8% African American) and 1822 women (59.8% white, 40.2% African American). The mean followup was 6.02 years (range 0-23.73). Men were more likely than women to have disability, hypertension, thrombosis, and renal, hematological, and serological manifestations. Men were more likely to be diagnosed at an older age and to have a lower education level. Women were more likely to have malar rash, photosensitivity, oral ulcers, alopecia. Raynaud's phenomenon, or arthralgia. Men were more likely than women to have experienced end organ damage including neuropsychiatric, renal, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular disease, and myocardial infarction, and to have died. In general, differences between males and females were more numerous and striking in whites, especially with respect to lupus nephritis, abnormal serologies, and thrombosis. Conclusion. Our study suggests that there are major clinical differences between male and female patients with SLE. Differences between male and female patients also depend on ethnicity. Future SLE studies will need to consider both ethnicity and gender to understand these differences. (First Release March 1 2012; J Rheumatol 2012;39:759-69; doi:10.3899/jrheum.111061)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available