4.6 Article

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 176, 期 8, 页码 708-719

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws130

关键词

angina pectoris; coronary artery bypass surgery; intermittent claudication; lupus erythematosus; systemic; myocardial infarction; prednisone; risk factors; stroke

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1 AR043727]
  2. Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research
  3. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR 025005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are at excess risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs). There is uncertainty regarding the relative importance of SLE disease activity, medications, or traditional risk factors in this increased risk. To gain insight into this, the authors analyzed data from a cohort of 1,874 patients with SLE who were seen quarterly at a single clinical center (April 1987June 2010) using pooled logistic regression analysis. In 9,485 person-years of follow-up, the authors observed 134 CVEs (rate 14.1/1,000 person-years). This was 2.66 times what would be expected in the general population based on Framingham risk scores (95 confidence interval: 2.16, 3.16). After adjustment for age, CVE rates were not associated with duration of SLE. However, they were associated with average past levels of SLE disease activity and recent levels of circulating anti-double-stranded DNA. Past use of corticosteroids (in the absence of current use) was not associated with CVE rates. However, persons currently using 20 mg/day or more of corticosteroids had a substantial increase in risk even after adjustment for disease activity. Thus, consistent with findings in several recent publications among cohorts with other diseases, current use of corticosteroids was associated with an increased risk of CVEs. These results suggest a short-term impact of corticosteroids on CVE risk.

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

4.6
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