4.3 Article

Gene-environmental interaction between smoking and shared epitope on the development of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 528-535

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.12307

关键词

anti-CCP antibodies; rheumatoid arthritis; shared epitope; smoking

资金

  1. Korea Healthcare technology R&D project, Ministry for Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI12C1834]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the gene-environment interactions of smoking and shared epitope (SE) both separately and combined on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: The literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. A meta-analysis on the associations between tobacco exposure (TE) and/or SE and the development of anti-CCP antibodies in patients with RA was performed. Results: Eight comparison studies with 5317 RA patients were considered in this meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for positive anti-CCP antibodies in TE+/SE- patients with RA was increased compared with TE-/SE- patients (OR = 1.373, 95% CI = 1.111-1.698, P = 0.003). The ORs for positive anti-CCP antibodies in TE-/SE+ patients and TE+/SE+ patients with RA were also increased compared with TE-/SE- patients (OR = 2.678, 95% CI = 2.031-3.532, P < 1.0 x 1(0-9) in TE-/SE+; OR = 4.233, 95% CI = 2.458-7.291, P = 1.9 x 10(-8) in TE+/SE+). Stratification by ethnicity indicated the same pattern as that shown in the overall group. The OR for positive anti-CCP antibodies in TE+/SE+ patients with RA was much higher than in TE-/SE- patients in Europeans and Asians (OR = 3.879, 95% CI = 2.203-6.830, P = 2.6 x 10(-7) ; OR = 10.504, 95% CI = 3.182-34.67, P = 1.1 x 10(-4)). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests a gene-environmental interaction between smoking and SE for the development of anti-CCP antibodies.

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

4.3
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