4.8 Article

Mannose-binding lectin variant alleles and the risk of arterial thrombosis in systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 351, 期 3, 页码 260-267

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa033122

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is an important complication in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Variant alleles of the mannose-binding lectin gene are associated with SLE as well as with severe atherosclerosis. We determined whether mannose-binding lectin variant alleles were associated with an increased risk of arterial thrombosis among patients with SLE. METHODS: Mannose-binding lectin alleles were genotyped by means of a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 91 Danish patients with SLE. Arterial and venous thromboses occurring after the diagnosis of SLE were assessed in a prospective study. Arterial and venous thromboses were confirmed by appropriate diagnostic methods. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients had no mannose-binding lectin variant alleles (A/A genotype), 30 were heterozygous (A/O genotype), and 7 were homozygous (O/O genotype). During a median follow-up of 9.1 years, arterial thromboses (cerebral or myocardial infarction or leg embolus) developed in 6 of the 7 patients with the O/O genotype, as compared with 18 of the 84 patients with the other two genotypes (hazard ratio, 5.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.2 to 15.2; overall incidence, 26 percent). After correction for other known risk factors, the hazard ratio was 7.0 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.9 to 25.4). Venous thromboses, which occurred in 14 patients, were statistically unrelated to the mannose-binding lectin genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with SLE, homozygosity for mannose-binding lectin variant alleles is associated with an increased risk of arterial thrombosis. The risk of venous thrombosis is not increased, indicating that mannose-binding lectin has a specific role in providing protection against arterial thrombosis.

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

4.8
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