| Title |
Risk factors of Pneumocystis jeroveci pneumonia in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Rheumatology International, September 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00296-008-0721-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ratchaya Lertnawapan, Kitti Totemchokchyakarn, Kanokrat Nantiruj, Suchela Janwityanujit |
| Abstract |
Pneumocystis jeroveci pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic infection which occurs mostly in the immune-deficiency host. Although PCP infected systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patient carries poor outcome, no standard guideline for prevention has been established. The aim of our study is to identify the risk factors which will indicate the PCP prophylaxis in SLE. This is a case control study. A search of Ramathibodi hospital's medical records between January 1994 and March 2004, demonstrates 15 cases of SLE with PCP infection. Clinical and laboratory data of these patients were compared to those of 60 matched patients suffering from SLE but no PCP infection. Compared to SLE without PCP, those with PCP infection have significantly higher activity index by MEX-SLEDAI (13.6 +/- 5.83 vs. 6.73 +/- 3.22) or more renal involvement (86 vs. 11.6%, P < 0.01), higher mean cumulative dose of steroid (49 +/- 29 vs. 20 +/- 8 mg/d, P < 0.01), but lower lymphocyte count (520 +/- 226 vs. 1420 +/- 382 cells/mm(3), P < 0.01). Interestingly, in all cases, a marked reduction in lymphocyte count (710 +/- 377 cells/mm(3)) is observed before the onset of PCP infection. The estimated CD4+ count is also found to be lower in the PCP group (156 +/- 5 vs. 276 +/- 8 cells/mm(3)). Our study revealed that PCP infected SLE patients had higher disease activity, higher dose of prednisolone treatment, more likelihood of renal involvement, and lower lymphocyte count as well as lower CD4+ count than those with no PCP infection. These data should be helpful in selecting SLE patients who need PCP prophylaxis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 76% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,151,768
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#137
of 2,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,226
of 87,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 87,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.