4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Lower risk of thromboembolic cardiovascular events with naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 162, 期 10, 页码 1105-1110

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.162.10.1105

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Naproxen strongly inhibits platelet aggregation. Objective: To examine the risk of acute thromboembolic cardiovascular events (TCEs) (myocardial infarction, sudden death, and stroke) with current naproxen use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: We studied patients aged 40 to 79 years with rheumatoid arthritis in the British General Practice Research Database, excluding those with a prior TCE and potentially confounding conditions. We matched up to 4 controls by sex, age, and site of medical practice to cases with first incident TCEs. The case diagnosis date was designated as the index date for each case and his or her controls. We categorized naproxen according to the most recent prescription prior to the index date as being current (less than or equal to30 days), past (>30 days but <365 days), or none ( 365 days before index date). Using founders. conditional logistic regression, we conducted a matched case-control analysis with adjustment for potential con. Results: We identified 809 cases. Current naproxen use was more common among controls (5.7%) than cases (3.2%). Adjusting for calendar year of treatment start, systemic corticosteroid use, diabetes, and comorbidity, we found that the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for current naproxen use was 0.61 (0.39-0.94) while that for past use was 0.87 (0.65-1.16). Secondary and sensitivity analyses supported these results. Conclusions: In this case-control study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a cur-rent prescription for naproxen had a reduced risk of acute major TCEs relative to those with no naproxen prescription in the past year. These results are consistent with the ability of naproxen to inhibit platelet aggregation.

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