4.7 Article

Risk of fractures in patients with multiple sclerosis A population-based cohort study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 78, 期 24, 页码 1967-1973

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318259e0ff

关键词

-

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. Novo Nordisk
  3. Top Institute Pharma
  4. Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board
  5. Dutch Ministry of Health
  6. MHRA
  7. Medical Research Council
  8. European Calcified Tissue Society
  9. Medical Research Council [U1475000001, MC_U147585824, MC_UP_A620_1014] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10082] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the risk of fracture in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with population-based controls. Methods: A population-based cohort study was performed in the Dutch PHARMO Record Linkage System (1998-2008). Patients with MS (n = 2,415) were matched by year of birth, sex, and practice to up to 6 patients without MS (controls). We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of fracture in MS. Time-dependent adjustments were made for age, history of disease, and drug use. Results: During follow-up, there were 59 fractures among patients with MS (2.4%) and 227 fractures among controls (1.8%). Patients with MS had a 1.7-fold increased risk of osteoporotic fracture (HR 1.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-2.53]) and a 4-fold increased risk of hip fracture (HR 4.08 [95% CI 2.21-7.56]). The risk of osteoporotic fracture was significantly greater for patients with MS who had been prescribed antidepressants (HR 3.25 [95% CI 1.77-5.97]) or hypnotics/anxiolytics (HR 3.40 [95% CI 2.06-5.63]) in the previous 6 months, compared with controls. Conclusions: Increased awareness of the risk of hip fracture is warranted in patients with MS, especially in those who have recently been prescribed antidepressants or hypnotics/anxiolytics. Neurology (R) 2012; 78: 1967-1973

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