4.7 Article

Age at onset in axial spondyloarthritis around the world: data from the Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society Peripheral Involvement in Spondyloarthritis study

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 1468-1475

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab544

关键词

axial spondyloarthritis; age at onset; HLA-B27; gender

资金

  1. AbbVie
  2. Pfizer
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Novartis
  5. UCB
  6. Janssen
  7. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of axSpA patients globally have an age at onset of axial disease below 45 years, with HLA-B27 and male gender associated with earlier disease onset.
Objective Age at onset is useful in identifying chronic back patients at an increased risk of axial SpA (axSpA). However, the majority of data on which the criterion of age at onset Methods Analyses were applied to patients from 24 countries across the world with an axSpA diagnosis and known age at onset of axial complaints. Cumulative probability plots were used to display the cumulative distribution of age at onset of axial symptoms. Linear regression models were built to assess the effect of HLA-B27 and gender on age at onset of axial symptoms. Results Of 2579 axSpA patients, 92% had an age at onset of axial symptoms <45 years, with only small variations across the geographical regions [Asia, n = 574 (94%); Europe and North America, n = 988 (92%); Latin America, n = 246 (89%); Middle East and North Africa, n = 771 (91%)]. Age at onset of axial symptoms was consistently lower in HLA-B27-positive patients {median 25 years [interquartile range (IQR) 19-32] vs 31 [IQR 22-39]} and male patients [median 25 years (IQR 19-33) vs 28 (IQR 21-37)], but in multivariable models an additional statistically significant effect of male gender independent of HLA-B27 was only found in Asia. Conclusion Around the world, the great majority of axSpA patients had an age at onset of axial disease of <45 years, with HLA-B27 and male gender associated with earlier disease onset.

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