4.5 Article

Statin Use in Giant Cell Arteritis: A Retrospective Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 910-915

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.121150

关键词

GIANT CELL ARTERITIS; VASCULITIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COA REDUCTASES

资金

  1. Mayo Foundation
  2. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [R01-AR30582]
  3. Conseil Regional de Picardie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. (1) To examine the association between statin use and giant cell arteritis (GCA); (2) to compare the clinical features and disease course of GCA among statin users and nonusers. Methods. For this retrospective study, we reviewed the medical records of all patients with biopsy-positive GCA diagnosed between 1998 and 2008. Using a case-control design, we compared the frequency of statin use in GCA patients to non-GCA population-based subjects who were randomly selected and individually matched by sex, age, and calendar year to the GCA cases. Statin use at diagnosis or index date and during followup was abstracted. In subjects with GCA, clinical information at diagnosis and followup was collected. Results. We included 594 patients, 297 with GCA (73% female), mean age at diagnosis 75 years. The rate of statin exposure at index date was 18.1% for GCA patients versus 33.3% for controls (p <0.001). Patients using statins were less likely to develop GCA compared with patients not using statins (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.6, p <0.001), even after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Among patients with GCA, the presenting clinical features and acute-phase reactants were similar in patients receiving statins compared to those not on statin therapy. These 2 groups were also similar with regard to relapse rate, prednisone tapering, and overall survival. Conclusion. Patients using statins may be less likely to develop GCA compared to patients who are not using statins. Statin use does not appear to modify the clinical presentation or the course of the disease.

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

4.5
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