4.6 Article

Increased prevalence of iron-overload associated endocrinopathy in thalassaemia versus sickle-cell disease

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 135, 期 4, 页码 574-582

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06332.x

关键词

sickle-cell disease; thalassaemia; iron overload; endocrinopathy; transfusion therapy

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR012771] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK057778] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron-overload associated endocrinopathy is the most frequently reported complication of chronic transfusion therapy in patients with thalassaemia (Thal). This study compared iron-overloaded subjects with Thal (n = 142; 54%M; age 25.8 +/- 8.1 years) and transfused sickle-cell disease (Tx-SCD; n = 199; 43%M, 24.9 +/- 13.2 years) to non-transfused SCD subjects (non-Tx-SCD; n = 64, 50%M, 25.3 +/- 11.3 years), to explore whether the underlying haemoglobinopathy influences the development of endocrinopathy. Subjects were recruited from 31 centres in the USA, Canada and the UK. Subjects with Thal had more evidence of diabetes (13% vs. 2%, P < 0.001), hypogonadism (40% vs. 4%, P < 0.001), hypothyroidism (10% vs. 2%, P = < 0.001) and growth failure (33% vs. 7%, P < 0.001), versus Tx-SCD. Fifty-six per cent of Thal had more than one endocrinopathy compared with only 13% of Tx-SCD (P < 0.001). In contrast, Tx-SCD was not different from non-Tx-SCD. Multivariate analysis indicated that endocrinopathy was more likely in Thal than SCD [Odds Ratio (OR) = 9.4, P < 0.001], with duration of chronic transfusion a significant predictor (OR = 1.4 per 10 years of transfusion, P = 0.04). Despite iron overload, endocrinopathy was not increased in Tx-SCD versus non-Tx-SCD, suggesting that the underlying disease may modulate iron-related endocrine injury. However, because transfusion duration remained a significant predictor of endocrinopathy, these data should be confirmed in SCD subjects that have been chronically transfused for longer periods of time.

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