Epidemiology of myasthenia gravis in Denmark, Finland and Sweden: a population-based observational study.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Incidence and prevalence rates of myasthenia gravis (MG) vary considerably across studies, and mortality risk is rarely addressed. We examined the prevalence and incidence rates, mortality and factors associated with mortality with MG.
METHOD: This was a registry linkage study based on nationwide health and administrative registries of Denmark, Finland and Sweden (populations of 5.9, 5.6 and 10.5 million, respectively). Patients with MG were identified based on International Classification of Diseases codes from inpatient and outpatient specialised care registries. Yearly prevalence, incidence and mortality rates in relation to the total background population were calculated from 2000 to 2020 (study period). The causes of death and factors associated with mortality were addressed separately.
RESULTS
The overall incidence of MG was 1.34 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.41), 1.68 (95% CI 1.60 to 1.75) and 1.62 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.68) per 100 000, and the overall prevalence per 100 000 was 18.56 (95% CI 18.31 to 18.81), 20.89 (95% CI 20.62 to 21.16) and 23.42 (95% CI 23.21 to 23.64) in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, respectively. The overall standardised mortality ratio (SMR) was 1.32 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.42) among patients with MG in Denmark, 1.23 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.33) in Finland, and 1.20 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.26) in Sweden, with higher SMR observed in women than men. Annual incidence and prevalence increased over time, whereas the SMR remained stable. The most common causes of death were MG, chronic ischaemic heart disease and acute myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS
This population-based study from three Nordic countries highlights the need for improved care of patients with MG, especially young women.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.