4.0 Article

Cardiovascular, rheumatologic, and pharmacologic predictors of stroke in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A nested, case-control study

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/art.23935

关键词

-

资金

  1. Abbott
  2. Amgen
  3. Wyeth-Australia
  4. Merck
  5. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine the risk of stroke in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RAJ and risk factors associated with stroke. Methods. We performed nested case-control analyses within a longitudinal databank, matching up to 20 controls for age, sex, and time of cohort entry to each patient with stroke. Conditional logistic regression was performed as an estimate of the relative risk of stroke in RA patients compared with those with noninflammatory rheumatic disorders, and to examine severity and anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment effects in RA. Results. We identified 269 patients with first-ever all-category strokes and 67 with ischemic stroke, including 41 in RA patients. The odds ratio (OR) for the risk of all-category stroke in RA was 1.64 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.16-2.30, P = 0.005), and for ischemic stroke was 2.66 (95% CI 1.24-5.70, P = 0.012). Ischemic stroke was predicted by hypertension, myocardial infarction, low-dose aspirin, comorbidity score, Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and presence of total joint replacement, but not by diabetes, smoking, exercise, or body mass index. Adjusted for cardiovascular and RA risk factors, ischemic stroke was associated with rofecoxib (P = 0.060, OR 2.27 [95% CI 0.97-5.28]), and possibly with corticosteroid use. Anti-TNF therapy was not associated with ischemic stroke (P = 0.584, OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.34-1.82]). Conclusion. RA is associated with increased risk of stroke, particularly ischemic stroke. Stroke is predicted by RA severity, certain cardiovascular risk factors, and comorbidity. Except for rofecoxib, RA treatment does not appear to be associated with stroke, although the effect of corticosteroids remains uncertain.

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

4.0
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