4.2 Article

Peripheral neuropathy associated with leflunomide: is there a risk patient profile?

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 74-78

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1282

关键词

leflunomide; peripheral neuropathy; adverse drug reaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose (i) To monitor the potential clinical neurotoxic symptoms in patients treated with leflunomide in daily practice and (ii) to describe the characteristics of patients presenting with this peripheral nervous system symptoms. Method All patients treated with leflunomide between May 2000 and April 2003 and followed in the rheumatology department of the University Hospital participated in the study. Data concerning treatment patterns with leflunomide, demographic and disease characteristics were obtained from clinical charts. Neuropathy was diagnosed with nerve conduction study (NCS). Cases of neuropathy were described and then compared to other patients using univariate analyses. Results One hundred and thirteen patients were included in the study. M/F sex ratio was 0.45. Mean age at start of treatment was 55.6 years (range = 27-8 1). During the study period, eight incident cases of peripheral neuropathy and two cases of worsening of preexisting neuropathy were reported (incidence: 9.8%). Compared with other patients, neuropathy cases were older (69 vs. 54 years, p = 0.0006), more often diabetic (30% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.009) and more often treated with potentially neurotoxic drugs (20% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.039). At least one risk factor (potentially neurotoxic drug or diabetes) was found in 50% of patients with neuropathy versus 4% of patients without neuropathy (56% PPV, 96% NPV). Conclusion Cases of toxic neuropathy have been observed during treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide. Their occurrence seems to be associated with known risk factors. Careful monitoring of the patient's neurological status during leflunomide treatment is therefore mandatory. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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