Alibaz-Oner Fatma, Karadeniz Asl, Ylmaz Sema, Balkarl Ayşe, Kimyon Gezmiş, Yazc Ayten, Çnar Muhammet, Ylmaz Sedat, Yldz Fatih, Bilge Şule Yaşar, Bilgin Emre, Coskun Belkis Nihan, Omma Ahmet, Çetin Gözde Yldrm, Çağatay Yonca, Karaaslan Yaşar, Sayarloğlu Mehmet, Pehlivan Yavuz, Kalyoncu Umut, Karadağ Ömer, Kaşifoğlu Timuçin, Erken Eren, Pay Salih, Çefle Ayşe, Ksack Bünyamin, Onat Ahmet Mesut, Çobankara Veli, Direskeneli Haner
From the Marmara University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Istanbul (FA-O, AK, HD); Selçuk University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Konya (SY); Pamukkale University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Denizli (AB, VÇ); Gaziantep University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Gaziantep (GK, BK, AMO); Kocaeli University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Kocaeli (AY, AÇ); Gulhane Military School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Ankara (MÇ, SY, SP); Çukurova University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Adana (FY, EE); Osmangazi University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Eskişehir (ŞYB, TK); Hacettepe University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Ankara (EB, UK, ÖK); Uludağ University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology Bursa (BNC, YP); Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Department of Rheumatology, Ankara (AO); Sütçü İmam University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology, Kahramanmaraş (GYÇ); Bilim University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology, Istanbul (YÇ); Hitit University Medical Faculty, Department of Rheumatology, Çorum (YK); and Ondokuz Mayıs University, School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology, Samsun, Turkey (MS).
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Feb;94(6):e494. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000494.
Vascular involvement is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity in Behçet disease (BD). There are no controlled studies for the management of vascular BD (VBD), and according to the EULAR recommendations, only immunosuppressive (IS) agents are recommended. In this study, we aimed to investigate the therapeutic approaches chosen by Turkish physicians during the initial event and relapses of VBD and the association of different treatment options with the relapses retrospectively.Patients with BD (n = 936, female/male: 347/589, mean age: 37.6 ± 10.8) classified according to ISG criteria from 15 rheumatology centers in Turkey were included. The demographic data, clinical characteristics of the first vascular event and relapses, treatment protocols, and data about complications were acquired.VBD was observed in 27.7% (n = 260) of the patients during follow-up. In 57.3% of the VBD patients, vascular involvement was the presenting sign of the disease. After the first vascular event, ISs were given to 88.8% and AC treatment to 59.8% of the patients. Median duration of AC treatment was 13 months (1-204) and ISs, 22 months (1-204). Minor hemorrhage related to AC treatment was observed in 7 (4.7%) patients. A second vascular event developed in 32.9% (n = 86) of the patients. The vascular relapse rate was similar between patients taking only ISs and AC plus IS treatments after the first vascular event (29.1% vs 22.4%, P = 0.28) and was significantly higher in group taking only ACs than taking only ISs (91.6% vs 29.1%, P < 0.001). During follow-up, a third vascular event developed in 17 (n = 6.5%) patients. The relapse rate was also similar between the patients taking only ISs and AC plus IS treatments after second vascular event (25.3% vs 20.8%, P = 0.93). When multivariate analysis was performed, development of vascular relapse negatively correlated with only IS treatments.We did not find any additional positive effect of AC treatment used in combination with ISs in the course of vascular involvement in patients with BD. Severe complications related to AC treatment were also not detected. Our results suggest that short duration of IS treatments and compliance issues of treatment are the major problems in VBD associated with vascular relapses during follow-up.
血管受累是白塞病(BD)致死和致残的主要原因之一。目前尚无关于血管性白塞病(VBD)治疗的对照研究,根据欧洲抗风湿病联盟(EULAR)的建议,仅推荐使用免疫抑制(IS)药物。在本研究中,我们旨在回顾性调查土耳其医生在VBD初始发作和复发期间选择的治疗方法,以及不同治疗方案与复发之间的关联。纳入了来自土耳其15个风湿病中心、根据国际白塞病研究组(ISG)标准分类的BD患者(n = 936,女性/男性:347/589,平均年龄:37.6±10.8)。收集了人口统计学数据、首次血管事件和复发的临床特征、治疗方案以及并发症数据。随访期间,27.7%(n = 260)的患者出现VBD。在57.3%的VBD患者中,血管受累是疾病的首发症状。首次血管事件后,88.8%的患者接受了IS治疗,59.8%的患者接受了秋水仙碱(AC)治疗。AC治疗的中位持续时间为13个月(1 - 204个月),IS治疗为22个月(1 - 204个月)。7例(4.7%)患者出现与AC治疗相关的轻微出血。32.9%(n = 86)的患者发生了第二次血管事件。首次血管事件后,仅接受IS治疗的患者与接受AC加IS治疗的患者的血管复发率相似(29.1%对22.4%,P = 0.28),且仅接受AC治疗的组的复发率显著高于仅接受IS治疗的组(91.6%对29.1%,P < 0.001)。随访期间,17例(n = 6.5%)患者发生了第三次血管事件。第二次血管事件后,仅接受IS治疗的患者与接受AC加IS治疗的患者的复发率也相似(25.3%对20.8%,P = 0.93)。进行多变量分析时,血管复发的发生仅与IS治疗呈负相关。我们未发现AC与IS联合使用在BD患者血管受累过程中有任何额外的积极作用。也未检测到与AC治疗相关的严重并发症。我们的结果表明,IS治疗持续时间短以及治疗依从性问题是VBD随访期间与血管复发相关的主要问题。