4.7 Article

Contribution of the initial features of systemic lupus erythematosus to the clinical evolution and survival of a cohort of Mediterranean patients

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 62, 期 9, 页码 859-865

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.62.9.859

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus has a wide spectrum of immunological and clinical manifestations. Its course is characterised by exacerbations which may result in mortality or morbidity to vital organs/systems. Objective: To determine clear and early prognostic markers to avoid further complications. Methods: 245 adult patients diagnosed between January 1978 and March 2001 were studied. Clinical manifestations and laboratory findings both at onset and during the clinical course were collected. The number, type, and severity of the flares were also noted. Statistical analyses between disease features at onset, subsequent flares, and mortality were performed. Results: 239 patients entered the study. Their mean age at onset was 30 years. The mean time between onset and diagnosis was 36 months and the mean evolution time was 114 months. 205 patients developed 915 flares; 205 (22.4%) of these flares were major flares, and affected 110 patients. Cardiac, neurological, or renal affection at onset were associated with a higher probability of developing cardiac (p=0.022), neurological (p<0.001), and renal (p<0.001) exacerbations, respectively, during the evolution. Lupus anticoagulant (LA) and anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) were predictors of stroke (aCL, p=0.000; LA, p=0.001). Age at diagnosis (p=0.003) and valvular disease at onset (p=0.008) were independent predictors of low survival. Conclusions: Renal, cardiac, or neurological involvement and the presence of LA or aCL positivity at onset were predictors of renal, cardiac, or neurological flares, respectively. Age and valvular involvement at onset were found to be independent adverse outcome predictors for low survival.

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