4.8 Article

Risk of acute arterial events associated with treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases: nationwide French cohort study

期刊

GUT
卷 69, 期 5, 页码 852-858

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318932

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (Agence Nationale de Securite du Medicament)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Patients with IBD are at increased risk of acute arterial events. Antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents and thiopurines may, via their anti-inflammatory properties, lower the risk of acute arterial events. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of thiopurines and anti-TNFs on the risk of acute arterial events in patients with IBD. Design Patients aged 18 years or older and affiliated to the French national health insurance with a diagnosis of IBD were followed up from 1 April 2010 until 31 December 2014. The risks of acute arterial events (including ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and peripheral artery disease) were compared between thiopurines and anti-TNFs exposed and unexposed patients with marginal structural Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for baseline and time-varying demographics, medications, traditional cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities and IBD disease activity. Results Among 177 827 patients with IBD (96 111 (54%) women, mean age at cohort entry 46.2 years (SD 16.3), 90 205 (50.7%) with Crohn's disease (CD)), 4145 incident acute arterial events occurred (incidence rates: 5.4 per 1000 person-years). Compared with unexposed patients, exposure to anti-TNFs (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.95), but not to thiopurines (HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.05), was associated with a decreased risk of acute arterial events. The magnitude in risk reduction was highest in men with CD exposed to anti-TNFs (HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.72). Conclusion Exposure to anti-TNFs is associated with a decreased risk of acute arterial events in patients with IBD, particularly in men with CD.

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

4.8
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