4.6 Article

Oral Corticosteroids and Onset of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 163, 期 4, 页码 1080-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.05.060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [DD000187]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To estimate the age when cardiomyopathy develops in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and to analyze the effect of corticosteroid treatment on the age of cardiomyopathy onset. Study design We identified a population-based sample of 462 boys with DMD, born between 1982 and 2005, in 5 surveillance sites in the US. Echocardiographic and corticosteroid treatment data were collected. Cardiomyopathy was defined by a reduced fractional shortening (<28%) or ejection fraction (<55%). The age of cardiomyopathy onset was determined. Survival analysis was performed to determine the effects of corticosteroid treatment on cardiomyopathy onset. Results The mean (SD) age of cardiomyopathy onset was 14.3 (4.2) years for the entire population and 15.2 (3.4) years in corticosteroid-treated vs 13.1 (4.8) in non-treated boys. Survival analysis described a significant delay of cardiomyopathy onset for boys treated with corticosteroids (P < .02). By 14.3 years of age, 63% of non-treated boys had developed cardiomyopathy vs only 36% of those treated. Among boys treated with corticosteroids, there is a significant positive effect of duration of corticosteroid treatment on cardiomyopathy onset (P < .0001). For every year of corticosteroid treatment, the probability of developing cardiomyopathy decreased by 4%. Conclusions Oral corticosteroid treatment was associated with delayed cardiomyopathy onset. The duration of corticosteroid treatment also correlated positively with delayed cardiomyopathy onset. Our analysis suggests that a boy with DMD treated for 5 years with corticosteroids might experience a 20% decrease in the likelihood of developing cardiomyopathy compared with untreated boys.

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

4.6
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