4.3 Article

Colchicine resistance: Associated factors and their effect on health-related quality of life in patients with familial Mediterranean fever

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 1239-1245

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.14407

关键词

colchicine; drug therapy; familial Mediterranean fever; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that smoking, attack duration, presence of arthritis, and disease severity were associated with colchicine resistance in FMF patients. Colchicine-resistant patients had poorer health-related quality of life.
Aim To determine the factors associated with colchicine resistance and the effect of colchicine resistance on health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with familial Mediterranean fever (FMF). Methods Demographic and clinical features, MEFV gene mutations, and Pras disease severity scores were recorded. QoL was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and FMF-QoL scales. Colchicine resistance was defined as at least 1 attack per month for 6 months at the maximum tolerated dose of colchicine in fully compliant patients. Results The mean age of 118 patients (90 female, 28 male) with FMF was 38.4 +/- 12.5 years. The percentage of colchicine-resistant patients was 19.5%. In univariable analysis, smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 2.885; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.104-7.539; P = 0.031), attack duration (OR = 1.955; 95% CI = 1.137-3.360; P = 0.015), presence of arthritis (OR = 5.235; 95% CI = 1.508-18.179; P = 0.009), and disease severity score (OR = 1.790; 95% CI = 1.334-2.402; P < 0.001) were associated with colchicine resistance. The FMF-QoL and subscales of SF-36 except for role emotional and vitality, were different between colchicine-resistant and non-resistant patients (P < 0.05). Conclusion Smoking, attack duration, presence of arthritis, and disease severity were associated with colchicine resistance in fully compliant FMF patients. Colchicine-resistant patients had poorer health-related QoL.

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