4.5 Article

Association between bullous pemphigoid and risk of venous thromboembolism: A nationwide population-based cohort study

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 49, 期 8, 页码 753-761

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.16412

关键词

bullous pemphigoid; cohort study; deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; venous thromboembolism

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 108-2314-B-075-041-MY3]
  2. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [V111C-022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among bullous pemphigoid (BP) patients in Taiwan and found that BP patients had a significantly higher rate of VTE compared to non-BP patients. BP was identified as a significant risk factor for VTE, along with cancer, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and female sex.
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the exact time course is unclear, and no previous studies have been reported in the Asian population. This nationwide population-based cohort study examined the risk of VTE among BP patients in Taiwan between 2007 and 2018. A total of 12 692 BP patients were 1:2 matched with non-BP patients by age, sex, and propensity score of comorbidities. Cumulative incidence and Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the risk of VTE. The BP cohort had a significantly higher VTE rate than the non-BP cohort (0.17% vs. 0.08%, p = 0.015) in 1 year; the finding was more prominent within the first 6 months after diagnosis. BP was a significant risk factor for VTE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-4.06); the association mildly diminished but remained significant after extending the follow-up period to 2 years (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.81). Other significant risk factors for VTE included cancer, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and female sex. In conclusion, this study revealed a 2.02-fold increased risk of VTE in patients with BP in Taiwan.

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

4.5
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