4.7 Article

Ethnicity and mortality from systemic lupus erythematosus in the US

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 1500-1505

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2005.040907

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study ethnic differences in mortality from systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) in two large, population-based datasets. Methods: We analysed the national death data (1979-98) from the National Center for Health Statistics (Hyattsville, Maryland, USA) and hospitalisation data (1993-2002) from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), the largest hospitalisation database in the US. Results: The overall, unadjusted, lupus mortality in the National Center for Health Statistics data was 4.6 per million, whereas the proportion of in-hospital mortality from the NIS was 2.9%. African-Americans had disproportionately higher mortality risk than Caucasians (all-cause mortality relative risk adjusted for age = 1.24 (women), 1.36 (men); lupus mortality relative risk = 3.91 (women), 2.40 (men)). Excess risk was found among in-hospital deaths (odds ratio adjusted for age = 1.4 (women), 1.3 (men)). Lupus death rates increased overall from 1979 to 98 (p < 0.001). The proportional increase was greatest among African-Americans. Among Caucasian men, death rates declined significantly (p < 0.001), but rates did not change substantially for African-American men. The African-American: Caucasian mortality ratio rose with time among men, but there was little change among women. In analyses of the NIS data adjusted for age, the in-hospital mortality risk decreased with time among Caucasian women (p < 0.001). Conclusions: African-Americans with lupus have 2-3-fold higher lupus mortality risk than Caucasians. The magnitude of the risk disparity is disproportionately higher than the disparity in all-cause mortality. A lupus-specific biological factor, as opposed to socioeconomic and access-to-care factors, may be responsible for this phenomenon.

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

4.7
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