4.3 Article

Use of antimalarial drugs is associated with a lower risk of preeclampsia in lupus pregnancy: A prospective cohort study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 633-640

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.13830

关键词

antimalarials; preeclampsia; pregnancy; systemic lupus erythematosus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Several factors have been associated with the development of preeclampsia in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Objective To identify risk factors associated with preeclampsia in patients with SLE and its impact on fetal outcomes. Patients and methods We studied a prospective cohort of pregnancies in women with SLE from January 2009 to December 2018. Demographic, clinical, serological and drug use characteristics were compared between patients who developed preeclampsia and those who did not, as well as the main neonatal outcomes. An adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors potentially associated with preeclampsia. Results We studied 316 pregnancies of 20 or more weeks of gestation. A total of 46 pregnancies (14.5%) were complicated by preeclampsia. A higher frequency of active disease before pregnancy (24.4% vs 11.3%, P = .01) and history of lupus nephritis (56.5% vs 30.1%, P < .001) were found in those patients who developed preeclampsia compared to those who did not. Preeclampsia was associated with a higher rate of prematurity, births of very low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. The multivariate analysis showed that the activity of the disease before (relative risk [RR] 2.7, 95% CI 1.04-7.4, P = .04) and during pregnancy (RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.0-9.1, P = .04) was associated with the development of preeclampsia. The use of antimalarial drugs during pregnancy was associated with a lower risk of preeclampsia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.53, P < .001). Conclusions Our study suggests that the use of antimalarial drugs during pregnancy reduces the risk of preeclampsia in lupus pregnancies.

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

4.3
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