Application of the European Society of Cardiology, Adult Treatment Panel III and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for cardiovascular risk management in a French cohort of rheumatoid arthritis

Is the Calcium Score Useful for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients at Low or Intermediate Cardiovascular Risk?

Cardiovascular disease, particularly myocardial infarction, is the leading cause of death of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The usefulness of the coronary artery calcification score (CACS), determined using cardiac computed-tomography (CT)-scan images, was assessed as a part of a cardiovascular work-up of RA patients at low or intermediate cardiovascular disease risk. This descriptive, cross-sectional, single-center study was conducted on patients with stable RA or that which is in remission. Each patient’s work-up included a collection of cardiovascular risk factors, laboratory analyses, an electrocardiogram, a supra-aortic trunks (SATs) echo-Doppler test and a cardiac CT scan. The primary endpoint was to determine the frequency of patients with a CACS > 100, indicating notable atherosclerosis. Fifty patients were analyzed: mean ± standard deviation age was 53.7 ± 7.5 years, 82% women. The CACS exceeded 100 in 12 (24%) patients (11 were at intermediate risk) and 2 of them underwent angioplasty for silent myocardial ischemia. Cardiovascular risk was reclassified from intermediate to high for 5 patients. Age according to sex and smoking status were significantly associated with that increase; no association was found with RA characteristics or treatments.

Rheumatoid Arthritis, Statin Indication and Lipid Goals: Analysis According to Different Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Different strategies have been proposed for the cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

(1) To estimate the cardiovascular risk by different strategies in RA patients, analyzing which proportion of patients would be candidates to receive statin therapy; (2) to identify how many patients meet the recommended lipid goals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed from a secondary database. The QRISK-3 score, the Framingham score (adjusted for a multiplying factor×1.5), the ASCVD calculator and the SCORE calculator were estimated. The indications for statin therapy according to NICE, Argentine Consensus, ACC/AHA, and new European guidelines were analyzed. The recommended LDL-C goals were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 420 patients were included. In total, 24.7% and 48.7% of patients in primary and secondary prevention were receiving statins, respectively. Only 19.4% of patients with cardiovascular history received high intensity statins. Applying the ACC/AHA guidelines (based on ASCVD score), the Argentine Consensuses (based on adjusted Framingham score), the NICE guidelines (based on QRISK-3) and European recommendations (based on SCORE), 26.9%, 26.5%, 41.1% and 18.2% of the population were eligible for statin therapy, respectively. Following the new European recommendations, 50.0%, 46.2% and 15.9% of the patients with low-moderate, high or very high risk achieved the suggested lipid goals.

CONCLUSION

Applying four strategies for lipid management in our population, the cardiovascular risk stratification and the indication for statins were different. A significant gap was observed when comparing the expected and observed statin indication, with few patients achieving the LDL-C goals.

Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Parameters for Better Management in Rheumatic Diseases

The early detection of cardiovascular disease (CVD) serves as a key element in preventive cardiology. The risk of developing CVD in patients with rheumatic disease is higher than that of the general population. Thus, the objective of this narrative review was to assess and describe updated risk-prediction parameters for CVD in patients suffering from rheumatic diseases, and, additionally, to evaluate therapeutic and risk management possibilities. The processes of recognizing CVD risk factors in rheumatic diseases, establishing diagnoses, and discovering CV risk assessments are currently displeasing in clinical practice; they have a limited clinical impact. A large number of references were found while screening PUBMED, Scopus, and Google scholar databases; the 47 most relevant references were utilized to build up this study. The selection was limited to English language full text articles, RCTs, and reviews published between 2011 and 2021. Multiple imaging techniques, such as ECG, ultrasound, and cIMT, as well as biomarkers like osteoprotegerin cytokine receptor and angiopoietin-2, can be beneficial in both CV risk prediction and in early subclinical diagnosis. Physical exercise is an essential non-pharmacological intervention that can maintain the health of the cardiovascular system and, additionally, influence the underlying disease. Lipid-lowering drugs (methotrexate from the non-biologic DMARDs family as well as biologic DMARDs such as anti-TNF) were all associated with a lower CV risk; however, anti-TNF medication can decrease cardiac compliance and promote heart failure in patients with previously diagnosed chronic HF. Although they achieved success rates in reducing inflammation, glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and COX-2 inhibitors were correlated with an increased risk of CVD. When taking all of the aforementioned points into consideration, there appears to be a dire need to establish and implement CVD risk stratification models in rheumatic patients.

Rheumatoid Arthritis, Statin Indication and Lipid Goals: Analysis According to Different Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Different strategies have been proposed for the cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

(1) To estimate the cardiovascular risk by different strategies in RA patients, analyzing which proportion of patients would be candidates to receive statin therapy; (2) to identify how many patients meet the recommended lipid goals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed from a secondary database. The QRISK-3 score, the Framingham score (adjusted for a multiplying factor×1.5), the ASCVD calculator and the SCORE calculator were estimated. The indications for statin therapy according to NICE, Argentine Consensus, ACC/AHA, and new European guidelines were analyzed. The recommended LDL-C goals were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 420 patients were included. In total, 24.7% and 48.7% of patients in primary and secondary prevention were receiving statins, respectively. Only 19.4% of patients with cardiovascular history received high intensity statins. Applying the ACC/AHA guidelines (based on ASCVD score), the Argentine Consensuses (based on adjusted Framingham score), the NICE guidelines (based on QRISK-3) and European recommendations (based on SCORE), 26.9%, 26.5%, 41.1% and 18.2% of the population were eligible for statin therapy, respectively. Following the new European recommendations, 50.0%, 46.2% and 15.9% of the patients with low-moderate, high or very high risk achieved the suggested lipid goals.

CONCLUSION

Applying four strategies for lipid management in our population, the cardiovascular risk stratification and the indication for statins were different. A significant gap was observed when comparing the expected and observed statin indication, with few patients achieving the LDL-C goals.

Should all patients with psoriasis receive statins? Analysis according to different strategies

BACKGROUND

Different strategies have been proposed for the cardiovascular risk management of patients with psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cardiovascular risk and evaluate two cardiovascular prevention strategies in patients with psoriasis, analyzing which proportion of patients would be candidates to receive statin therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was selected from a secondary database. All patients >18 years with psoriasis without cardiovascular disease or lipid-lowering treatment were included. The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculator (2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk calculator (2016 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Atherosclerosis guidelines) were calculated. The SCORE risk value was adjusted by a multiplication factor of 1.5. The recommendations for the indication of statins suggested by both guidelines were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 892 patients (mean age 59.9±16.5 years, 54.5% women) were included. The median atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculator and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation values were 13.4% (IQR 6.1-27.0%) and 1.9% (IQR 0.4-5.2), respectively. According to the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculator, 20.1%, 11.0%, 32.9%, and 36.4% of the population was classified at low, borderline, moderate, or high risk. Applying the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation, 26.5%, 42.9%, 20.8%, and 9.8% of patients were stratified as having low, moderate, high, or very high risk, respectively. The proportion of subjects with statin indication was similar using both strategies: 60.1% and 60.9% for the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2016 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Atherosclerosis guidelines, respectively.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

This was a secondary database study. Data on the severity of psoriasis and pharmacological treatments were not included in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

This population with psoriasis was mostly classified at moderate-high risk and the statin therapy indication was similar when applying the two strategies evaluated.

Profile and burden of care among caregivers of Ultra-Orthodox Frail Elders

OBJECTIVE

A paucity of research exists on burden of care (BoC) and factors associated with it among minority groups, such as Ultra-Orthodox Jews. The aims of this study were (1) to portray the profile of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish (UOJ) caregivers and their BoC; (2) to explore relations between care recipients' characteristics, care situations, characteristics of caregivers, and BoC.

METHODS

A total of 107 UOJ (66 women, 41 men) family caregivers were interviewed face to face in their homes, using valid and reliable measures.

RESULTS

Participants reported moderate BoC and high level of social support. Caregiver's self-rated health, caregiver's anxiety, and social support emerged as significant predictors of caregiver burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings might help social workers and other health professionals to better understand the unique characteristics of the UOJ community and to target caregivers with higher anxiety, lesser social support, and poorer self-rated health in order to reduce their caregiving burden.

Discordance of the Framingham cardiovascular risk score and the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association risk score in systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis

Despite the increasing use of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cardiovascular (CV) risk score in clinical practice, few studies have compared this score to the Framingham risk score among rheumatologic patients. We calculated Framingham and 2013 ACC/AHA risk scores in subjects with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and assessed demographic, CV, and rheumatologic characteristics associated with discordant scores (high-risk ACC/AHA scores but low-risk Framingham scores). SLE and RA subjects drawn from two population-based cohort studies were assessed during in-person study visits. We used chi-squared tests and t tests to examine the association of discordant CV risk scores with baseline characteristics. Eleven (7.0%) of 157 SLE subjects and 11 (11.5%) of 96 RA subjects had discordant CV risk scores with high ACC/AHA scores and low Framingham scores. These findings did not significantly change when a 1.5 multiplier was applied to the Framingham score. Rheumatologic disease duration, high-sensitivity CRP levels, African-American race, diabetes, current use of anti-hypertensive medication, higher age, and higher systolic blood pressure were each significantly associated with discordant risk scores. Approximately 10% of SLE and RA subjects had discordant 10-year CV risk scores. Our findings suggest that the use of the 2013 ACC/AHA risk score could result in changes to lipid-lowering therapy recommendations in a significant number of rheumatologic patients. Prospective studies are needed to compare which score better predicts CV events in rheumatologic patients, especially those with risk factors associated with discordant risk scores.

Managing cardiovascular risk in patients with inflammatory arthritis: practical considerations

Patients with inflammatory arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis, have higher rates of cardiovascular mortality. While the increased cardiovascular risk is only explained to some extent, a lot of research is currently conducted to improve our understanding of its pathogenesis, risk stratification, and optimal cardiovascular risk management. This review sought to report epidemiological data pertaining to the cardiovascular disease burden in patients with inflammatory arthritis, underlying mechanisms accounting for excessive cardiovascular risk, along with recommendations regarding risk assessment and management in this patient population.

Cardiovascular risk assessment in rheumatoid arthritis - controversies and the new approach

The current methods of cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment in the course of inflammatory connective tissue diseases are a subject of considerable controversy. Comparing different methods of CV risk assessment in current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guidelines, only a few of them recommend the use of formal risk calculators. These are the EULAR guidelines suggesting the use of SCORE and the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines performed in collaboration with NICE preferring the use of QRISK-2. Analyzing the latest American and British reports, two main concepts could be identified. The first one is to focus on risk calculators developed for the general population taking into account RA, and the calculator that might fulfill this role is the new QRISK-2 presented by NICE in 2014. The second concept is to create RA-specific risk calculators, such as the Expanded Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Score for RA. In this review we also discuss the efficiency of a new Pooled Cohort Equation and other calculators in the general and RA population.

Cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis: assessment, management and next steps

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality which cannot be fully explained by traditional CV risk factors; cumulative inflammatory burden and antirheumatic medication-related cardiotoxicity seem to be important contributors. Despite the acknowledgment and appreciation of CV disease burden in RA, optimal management of individuals with RA represents a challenging task which remains suboptimal. To address this need, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) published recommendations suggesting the adaptation of traditional risk scores by using a multiplication factor of 1.5 if two of three specific criteria are fulfilled. Such guidance requires proper coordination of several medical specialties, including general practitioners, rheumatologists, cardiologists, exercise physiologists and psychologists to achieve a desirable result. Tight control of disease activity, management of traditional risk factors and lifestyle modification represent, amongst others, the most important steps in improving CV disease outcomes in RA patients. Rather than enumerating studies and guidelines, this review attempts to critically appraise current literature, highlighting future perspectives of CV risk management in RA.

Cardiovascular comorbidity in rheumatic diseases

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) have an increased risk of premature death compared with the general population, mainly because of the risk of cardiovascular disease, which is similar in patients with RA and in those with diabetes mellitus. Pathogenic mechanisms and clinical expression of cardiovascular comorbidities vary greatly between different rheumatic diseases, but atherosclerosis seems to be associated with all IJDs. Traditional risk factors such as age, gender, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, smoking, obesity and diabetes mellitus, together with inflammation, are the main contributors to the increased cardiovascular risk in patients with IJDs. Although cardiovascular risk assessment should be part of routine care in such patients, no disease-specific models are currently available for this purpose. The main pillars of cardiovascular risk reduction are pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as tight control of disease activity.

Prevention of cardiovascular disease in rheumatoid arthritis

The increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been recognized for many years. However, although the characteristics of CVD and its burden resemble those in diabetes, the focus on cardiovascular (CV) prevention in RA has lagged behind, both in the clinical and research settings. Similar to diabetes, the clinical picture of CVD in RA may be atypical, even asymptomatic. Therefore, a proactive screening for subclinical CVD in RA is warranted. Because of the lack of clinical trials, the ideal CVD prevention (CVP) in RA has not yet been defined. In this article, we focus on challenges and controversies in the CVP in RA (such as thresholds for statin therapy), and propose recommendations based on the current evidence. Due to the significant contribution of non-traditional, RA-related CV risk factors, the CV risk calculators developed for the general population underestimate the true risk in RA. Thus, there is an enormous need to develop adequate CV risk stratification tools and to identify the optimal CVP strategies in RA. While awaiting results from randomized controlled trials in RA, clinicians are largely dependent on the use of common sense, and extrapolation of data from studies on other patient populations. The CVP in RA should be based on an individualized evaluation of a broad spectrum of risk factors, and include: 1) reduction of inflammation, preferably with drugs decreasing CV risk, 2) management of factors associated with increased CV risk (e.g., smoking, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, kidney disease, depression, periodontitis, hypothyroidism, vitamin D deficiency and sleep apnea), and promotion of healthy life style (smoking cessation, healthy diet, adjusted physical activity, stress management, weight control), 3) aspirin and influenza and pneumococcus vaccines according to current guidelines, and 4) limiting use of drugs that increase CV risk. Rheumatologists should take responsibility for the education of health care providers and RA patients regarding CVP in RA. It is immensely important to incorporate CV outcomes in testing of anti-rheumatic drugs.