Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Correspondence
Did the subjects and the controls have the same disease?
Free
  1. Romain J Forestier1,
  2. Fatma Begum Erol Forestier2
  1. 1Centre de Recherche Rhumatologique et Thermal, Aix-Les-Bains, France
  2. 2Istanbul Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  1. Correspondence to Dr Romain J Forestier, Centre de Recherche Rhumatologique et Thermal, Aix-Les-Bains 73100, France; romain.forestier{at}wanadoo.fr

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The article by Roberts et al1 is important because it points to potential occurrence of side effects due to paracetamol, some of which are life-threatening. However, we have some doubts about the conclusions because it is not certain that they really show the responsibility of the drug itself in the adverse events mentioned. Although the authors well define methodological limitations of the article, we think that they didn't take into account the main confounding factor.

The major confounding factor seems to be the reason of paracetamol use, since it is important to know whether the disease treated in the controls is similar to the one in subjects.

When rheumatic diseases are considered, we know that in rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular morbidity is higher than in general population, related to the disease activity.2 In osteoarthritis, where long-term paracetamol use is commonly prescribed, the disease is usually associated with metabolic syndrome and decreased physical activity that lead to increased cardiovascular morbidity.3 In a later article, it seems essential to have a more accurate assessment of the comparability of the groups in terms of risk factors.

References

View Abstract

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.