4.2 Article

Increased risk of thrombotic events in cold agglutinin disease: A 10-year retrospective analysis

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rth2.12333

关键词

autoimmune anemia; classical complement pathway; hemolytic anemia; thrombosis; retrospective analysis

资金

  1. Bioverativ, a Sanofi company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cold agglutinin disease (CAD) is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia mediated by IgM autoantibodies that trigger hemolysis via classical complement pathway. Increased incidence of thrombotic events (TEs) has been reported in patients with other forms of hemolysis. The incidence of TEs in patients with CAD is unknown. Objective: Evaluate TE risk in patients with CAD. Patients/Methods: This is a matched cohort comparison study evaluating the risk of TEs in patients with CAD and without CAD over a 10-year period. A total of 608 patients with CAD were identified in the Optum Claims-Clinical data set by reviewing clinical notes for CAD terms and matched with up to 10 patients without CAD (N = 5873). TEs were defined as the first medical claim for a TE using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. Cox regression models were used to estimate time to first TE. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate TE risk among patients with primary CAD. Results: At least 1 TE occurred in 29.6% of patients with CAD and 17.6% of patients without CAD. The proportion of patients experiencing venous, arterial, and cerebral TEs were each higher among CAD patients. The overall risk of having TEs was higher in patients with CAD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64-2.30). Patients with presumed primary CAD also demonstrated an increased risk of TEs (aHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.46-2.22). Patients with CAD with the fewest comorbidities had 2.44-fold higher risk of having a TE (95% CI, 1.70-3.52). Conclusions: Patients with CAD have an increased risk of TEs when compared with a matched non-CAD population.

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

4.2
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