4.6 Article

Clinical burden of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

期刊

AGING-US
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 3899-3910

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.102858

关键词

autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease; hemorrhagic stroke; end-stage renal disease; all-cause mortality; time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression

资金

  1. Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center [MOHW108-TDU-B-212-133004]
  2. China Medical University Hospital, Academia Sinica Stroke Biosignature Project [BM10701010021]
  3. MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke [MOST 108-2321-B-039-003-]
  4. Tseng-Lien Lin Foundation, Taichung, Taiwan
  5. Katsuzo and Kiyo Aoshima Memorial Funds, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are no specific therapies for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), and clinical data evaluating the effects of non-specific therapies on ADPKD patients are scarce. We therefore evaluated those effects using data from a longitudinal health insurance database collected from 2000-2010. We individually selected patients with and without ADPKD from inpatient data files as well as from the catastrophic illness registry in Taiwan based on 1:5 frequency matching for sex, age, and index year. The hazard ratios (HR) of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in ADPKD inpatients were elevated as compared to the controls. Similarly, ADPKD patients from the catastrophic illness registry had an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke and ESRD. Allopurinol users also had an increased risk of all-cause mortality. The HR for developing ESRD after medication exposure was 0.47-fold for statin and 1.93-fold for pentoxifylline. These results reveal that patients with ADPKD (either inpatient or from the catastrophic illness registry) are at elevated risk for hemorrhagic stroke and ESRD, and suggest that allopurinol and pentoxifylline should not be prescribed to ADPKD patients due to possible adverse effects.

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