4.7 Article

Gender-specific differences in Adamantiades-Beh‡et's disease manifestations: an analysis of the German registry and meta-analysis of data from the literature

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 121-133

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu247

关键词

Adamantiades-Beh double dagger et's disease; Beh double dagger et's disease; Beh double dagger et's syndrome; gender; sex factors; meta-analysis

资金

  1. AbbVie
  2. Chugai
  3. Novartis
  4. Pfizer
  5. MSD
  6. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods. Using the German ABD registry data, we compared 36 clinical variables by gender (with women as the reference category) and investigated potential effect modification by HLA-B5 or ethnic background. The registry data were combined with those from a literature search to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) for variables with data from a parts per thousand yen10 relevant datasets. Results. The German ABD registry provided information for 747 subjects (58.1% males) and the systematic literature review identified another 52 datasets informing on 16 variables. Both analyses consistently revealed the association of male gender with ocular involvement (RR 1.28 and 1.34 from the ABD registry and meta-analysis, respectively), folliculitis (RR 1.30 and 1.26), papulopustular lesions (RR 1.23 and 1.25), vascular involvement (RR 2.31 and 2.27), superficial (RR 2.96 and 1.63) and deep venous thromboses (RR 2.56 and 2.16) and female gender with genital ulcers (RR 0.78 and 0.92) and joint involvement (RR 0.79 and 0.89). The ABD registry data additionally showed male gender associated with heart involvement (RR 10.60), whereas the meta-analyses revealed male gender associated with the pathergy test (RR 1.14) and female gender associated with erythema nodosum (RR 0.86). HLA-B5 and Turkish or German origin did not affect the observed associations. Conclusion. These analyses support gender-associated clinical variations in ABD and in particular a clinically meaningful risk of cardiovascular involvement for men.

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

4.7
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