4.2 Article

Clinical characteristics associated with occurrence and poor prognosis of interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 434-441

出版社

KOREAN ASSOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2016.349

关键词

Arthritis; rheumatoid; Lung diseases; interstitial; Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease

资金

  1. JW Pharmaceutical (JWP) [ISP2013-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: To analyze clinical characteristics of interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), especially in patients with poor prognosis. Methods: Seventy-seven RA patients with ILD and 231 age, sex, and disease duration-matched RA patients without ILD were enrolled in this retrospective study. Epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory information were obtained through a medical chart review. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of mortality in RA patients with ILD. Results: Compared to the RA without ILD group, the RA with ILD group had significantly higher titers of rheumatoid factor and the anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (p = 0.001 for both), higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) at the time of RA diagnosis (p = 0.014), and a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.022) and CRP levels (p < 0.001) throughout the 10-year follow-up period. These patients also received a higher mean daily dose of corticosteroids (p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis of RA patients with ILD, 28 patients (36.4%) died during follow-up. Multivariate analysis revealed that older age at the time of ILD diagnosis was significantly associated with mortality. Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) subtype on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was also suggested as a poor prognostic factor. Conclusions: The survival of RA patients with ILD is adversely affected by age at the time of ILD diagnosis. RA-ILD patients diagnosed after age 65 or with a UIP subtype on HRCT may have a poor prognosis.

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