Key result
Familial chylomicronemia syndrome was associated with a higher risk of acute hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis compared to multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome (58.6% vs 19.4%; HR 3.6; P<0.01).
Why the study?
The relative incidence of acute pancreatitis, ischemic cardiovascular disease, and diabetes in patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome versus multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome was unknown.
Do patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) have different rates of acute pancreatitis, ischemic cardiovascular disease, and diabetes compared to those with multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome (MCS) and general population controls?
Comparison
FCS vs MCS vs matched controls from the general population
Design
Retrospective matched cohort study
Follow-up
Median 9.8 years
Authors
Loading...
FCS shows markedly higher pancreatitis rates than MCS; leaves open optimal management strategies pending interventional trials.
Cohort (n=566)
Yes
Do patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) have different rates of acute pancreatitis, ischemic cardiovascular disease, and diabetes compared to those with multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome (MCS) and general population controls?
Hazard Ratio: 3.6
Absolute Event Rate: 58.6% vs 19.4%
p-value: p=<0.01
Patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome have a significantly higher risk of acute hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis but a lower risk of ischemic cardiovascular events compared to those with multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome.
Belhassen et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Familial and multifactorial chylomicronemia syndromes (n=566). Familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) vs. Multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome (MCS) was evaluated on Acute hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis (AHP) (HR 3.6, p=<0.01). Familial chylomicronemia syndrome was associated with a higher risk of acute hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis compared to multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome (58.6% vs 19.4%; HR 3.6; P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: