4.6 Article

Incidence and clinical spectrum of thiazide-associated hypercalcemia

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 120, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.07.044

关键词

epidemiology; Hypercalcemia; hyperparathyroidism; incidence; thiazide diuretic; trends

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: The study determines the incidence of thiazide-associated hypercalcemia and clarifies its clinical features and natural history. METHODS: In a population-based descriptive study, Olmsted County, Minn, residents with thiazide-associated hypercalcemia were identified through the Rochester Epidemiology Project and the Mayo Clinic Laboratory Information System. Changes in incidence rates were evaluated by Poisson regression. RESULTS: Seventy-two Olmsted County residents (68 women and 4 men; mean age, 64 years) with thiazide-associated hypercalcemia first recognized in 1992 to 2001 were identified. The overall annual age-and sex-adjusted (to 2000 US whites) incidence was 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-9.5) per 100,000. There was an increase in incidence after 1996, peaking at 16.3 (95% CI, 8.3-24.3) per 100,000 in 1998. The highest rate was 55.3 per 100,000 in 70- to 79-year-old women. Hypercalcemia was identified a mean of 6 +/- 7 years after thiazide initiation, and the average highest serum calcium was 10.7 +/- 0.3 mg/dL with serum parathyroid hormone (obtained in 53 patients) of 4.8 +/- 2.7 pmol/L. Of 33 patients who discontinued the thiazide, 21 (64%) had persistent hypercalcemia. Patients subsequently diagnosed with primary hyperparathyroidism had the highest average serum calcium and parathyroid hormone levels of 11.0 +/- 0.3 mg/dL and 6.3 +/- 2.4 pmol/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: The persistence of hypercalcemia in patients discontinuing thiazides, and similarities in the clinical spectrum, suggest that underlying primary hyperparathyroidism is common in patients who develop hypercalcemia while taking thiazide diuretics. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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