4.6 Article

Increased risk of mycobacterial infections associated with anti-rheumatic medications

期刊

THORAX
卷 70, 期 7, 页码 677-682

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206470

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ontario Thoracic Society
  2. Ontario Lung Association
  3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) - Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents and other anti-rheumatic medications increase the risk of TB in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Whether they increase the risk of infections with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) is uncertain. Objectives To determine the effect of anti-TNF therapy and other anti-rheumatic drugs on the risk of NTM disease and TB in older patients with RA. Methods Population-based nested case-control study among Ontario seniors aged >= 67 years with RA who were prescribed at least one anti-rheumatic medication between 2001 and 2011. We identified cases of TB and NTM disease microbiologically and identified drug exposures using linked prescription drug claims. We estimated ORs using conditional logistic regression, controlling for several potential confounders. Measurements and main results Among 56 269 older adults with RA, we identified 37 cases of TB and 211 cases of NTM disease; each case was matched to up to 10 controls. Individuals with TB or NTM disease were both more likely to be using anti-TNF therapy (compared with non-use); adjusted ORs (95% CIs) were 5.04 (1.27 to 20.0) and 2.19 (1.10 to 4.37), respectively. Exposure to leflunomide and other antirheumatic drugs with high immunosuppressing potential also were associated with both TB and NTM disease, while oral corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine were associated with NTM disease. Conclusions Anti-TNF use is associated with increased risk of both TB and NTM disease, but appears to be a relatively greater risk for TB. Several other anti-rheumatic drugs were also associated with mycobacterial infections.

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