4.7 Article

The association between smoking and the development of psoriatic arthritis among psoriasis patients

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 219-224

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2010.147793

关键词

-

资金

  1. Krembil Foundation
  2. Arthritis Society SPARCC National Research Initiative
  3. Canadian Arthritis Network
  4. Abbott PsA
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To investigate the association between smoking and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) among patients with psoriasis and its interaction with the HLA-C*06 allele. Methods In this exploratory case-control study, smoking status was determined at the time of the diagnosis of arthritis for PsA patients and at their first study visit for psoriasis patients, when they were confirmed not to have PsA. The proportions of patients exposed to smoking were compared in patients with PsA to those with psoriasis alone. A logistic regression model was constructed to test the independent association of smoking and PsA after adjusting for potential confounders. The statistical interaction between HLA-C*06 and smoking was tested through a regression model. Results The proportions of current and past smokers were higher in the psoriasis group compared with the PsA group (30.2% vs 23.4% and 26.7% vs 22.3%, p=0.001, respectively). On multivariate analysis being a current smoker versus a lifetime non-smoker remained inversely associated with PsA (OR 0.57, p=0.002), while past smoker versus lifetime non-smoker status was no longer significant. In a subgroup analysis, smoking remained inversely associated with PsA only among patients who were HLA-C*06 negative. Regression analysis revealed that the interaction between smoking status (ever smoked vs lifetime non-smoker) and HLA-C*06 was statistically significant (p=0.01). Conclusion Smoking may be inversely associated with PsA among psoriasis patients. This association is not present among HLA-C*06-positive individuals.

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