| Title |
Hydroxychloroquine and risk of development of cancers: a nationwide population-based cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s175581 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
I-Chieh Mao, Ching-Yeh Lin, Chia-Lin Wu, Chew-Teng Kor, Chia-Chu Chang |
| Abstract |
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), one of the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, may lead to an inhibition of autophagy. Autophagy, an intracellular self-defense mechanism for the lysosomal degradation of cytoplasmic components such as damaged organelles, plays a role in protecting against neoplasm growth but is also vital for cancer cells due to an increased intracellular metabolic waste. Taiwan National Health Insurance Database was subjected to analysis to investigate the effect of HCQ exposure on cancer risk in patients with autoimmune diseases. Cancer incidence between patients with or without at least 12-month HCQ use was compared by propensity score-matched landmark analysis. A total of 100,000 participants were enrolled, including 7,662 patients who were diagnosed with autoimmune diseases between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012. After propensity score matching, HCQ user and nonuser groups consist of 1,933 patients with a mean follow-up time of 7.82 and 6.7 years, respectively. During the follow-up period, 93 HCQ users and 77 HCQ nonusers developed cancers. Meanwhile, Kaplan-Meier estimates showed no difference in the overall incidence of cancer between HCQ users and nonusers. This propensity score-matched study of Taiwanese patients with autoimmune diseases suggested that HCQ exposure did not increase the cancer risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 33% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 33% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Researcher | 1 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 17% |
| Engineering | 1 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,995,332
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#141
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,255
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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.