EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for cardiovascular risk (CVR) management in gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren's syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). METHODS: Following European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) standardised procedures, a multidisciplinary task force formulated recommendations for CVR prediction and management based on systematic literature reviews and expert opinion. RESULTS: Four overarching principles emphasising the need of regular screening and management of modifiable CVR factors and patient education were endorsed. Nineteen recommendations (eleven for gout, vasculitis, SSc, MCTD, myositis, SS; eight for SLE, APS) were developed covering three topics: (1) CVR prediction tools; (2) interventions on traditional CVR factors and (3) interventions on disease-related CVR factors. Several statements relied on expert opinion because high-quality evidence was lacking. Use of generic CVR prediction tools is recommended due to lack of validated rheumatic diseases-specific tools. Diuretics should be avoided in gout and beta-blockers in SSc, and a blood pressure target <130/80 mm Hg should be considered in SLE. Lipid management should follow general population guidelines, and antiplatelet use in SLE, APS and large-vessel vasculitis should follow prior EULAR recommendations. A serum uric acid level <0.36 mmol/L (<6 mg/dL) in gout, and disease activity control and glucocorticoid dose minimisation in SLE and vasculitis, are recommended. Hydroxychloroquine is recommended in SLE because it may also reduce CVR, while no particular immunosuppressive treatment in SLE or urate-lowering therapy in gout has been associated with CVR lowering. CONCLUSION: These recommendations can guide clinical practice and future research for improving CVR management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a cross-sectional performance analysis of nine clinical risk prediction tools.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the performance of cardiovascular risk (CVR) prediction models reported by European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and European Society of Cardiology recommendations to identify high-atherosclerotic CVR (ASCVR) patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). METHODS: Six models predicting the risk of a first cardiovascular disease event (first-CVD) (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE); modified-SCORE; Framingham risk score; Pooled Cohorts Risk Equation; Prospective Cardiovascular Münster calculator; Globorisk), three risk prediction models for patients with a history of prior arterial events (recurrent-CVD) (adjusted Global APS Score (aGAPSS); aGAPSSCVD; Secondary Manifestations of Arterial Disease (SMART)) and carotid/femoral artery vascular ultrasound (VUS) were used to assess ASCVR in 121 APS patients (mean age: 45.8±11.8 years; women: 68.6%). We cross-sectionally examined the calibration, discrimination and classification accuracy of all prediction models to identify high ASCVR due to VUS-detected atherosclerotic plaques, and risk reclassification of patients classified as non high-risk according to first-CVD/recurrent-CVD tools to actual high risk based on VUS. RESULTS: Spiegelhalter's z-test p values 0.47-0.57, area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC) 0.56-0.75 and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.01-0.35 indicated moderate calibration, poor-to-acceptable discrimination and negligible-to-moderate classification accuracy, respectively, for all risk models. Among recurrent-CVD tools, SMART and aGAPSSCVD (for non-triple antiphospholipid antibody-positive patients) performed better (z/AUROC/MCC: 0.47/0.64/0.29 and 0.52/0.69/0.29, respectively) than aGAPSS. VUS reclassified 34.2%-47.9% and 40.5%-52.6% of patients classified as non-high-ASCVR by first-CVD and recurrent-CVD prediction models, respectively. In patients aged 40-54 years, >40% VUS-guided reclassification was observed for first-CVD risk tools and >50% for recurrent-CVD prediction models. CONCLUSION: Clinical CVR prediction tools underestimate actual high ASCVR in APS. VUS may help to improve CVR assessment and optimal risk factor management.

Lipid management in systemic lupus erythematosus according to risk classifiers suggested by the European Society of Cardiology and disease-related risk factors reported by the EULAR recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommended that lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) should follow general population guidelines. We examined the eligibility for LLT in SLE according to Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), with and without the addition of vascular ultrasound (VUS) and disease-related features. METHODS: 210 patients with SLE without prior cardiovascular events, diabetes or antiphospholipid syndrome underwent cardiovascular risk assessment with SCORE. LLT eligibility was evaluated in low-risk and moderate-risk patients following European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Atherosclerotic plaques on carotid ultrasound (cUS)) and carotid and femoral ultrasound (cfUS), prolonged disease duration (PDD, ≥10 years), failure to achieve lupus low disease activity state (LLDASno), cumulative glucocorticoid 'cardiovascular harm' dose (GCCVH, optimal cut-off to predict ultrasound-detected plaques) and antiphospholipid antibody positivity (aPLpos) were tested as SCORE risk enhancers for classification ability (phi coefficient) and agreement (Cohen's kappa) using SCORE plus cfUS as a reference modality for LLT eligibility. RESULTS: Plaques were detected in 9.9% of low-risk cases and 54.6% of moderate-risk cases. SCORE alone would indicate 0% of low-risk patients and 3% of moderate-risk patients for LLT eligibility. According to SCORE+cfUS, 9.9% of low-risk patients and 57.6% of moderate-risk patients, respectively, would be eligible for LLT based on ESC guidelines. Ιn low-risk/moderate-risk patients, phi values for SCORE+PDD, GCCVH (cut-off ≥11 g), LLDASno and aPLpos in antiplatelet-naïve antiphospholipid antibody-positive (aPLpos/APT-) cases were 0.06/0.13, 0.23/0.20, 0.07/0.16 and 0.06/0.33, respectively. Agreement for LLT eligibility to SCORE+cfUS was better for SCORE+PDD in moderate-risk patients and for SCORE+cUS in both groups of patients. SCORE+GCCVH and SCORE+aPLpos showed at least fair agreement (kappa ≥0.20) to SCORE+cfUS in low-risk or moderate-risk and in aPLpos/APT- moderate-risk patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Disease-related and VUS features, in addition to SCORE, may help to improve LLT decision making in SLE. GCCVH and aPLpos improve LLT eligibility similarly and to a greater degree than PDD or LLDASno.

Application of EULAR and European Society of Cardiology recommendations with regard to blood pressure and lipid management in antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: To examine blood pressure (BP) and lipid treatment eligibility in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) according to European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. METHODS: Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), modified-SCORE, diabetes mellitus (DM)-equivalent risk classifiers (DIME) and disease-related classifiers -type of thrombotic events (APSevents), antiphospholipid-antibody profile (aPLprofile) and adjusted Global APS Score for cardiovascular disease- were used to calculate predicted low-moderate, high and very-high cardiovascular risk (CVR) in 111 patients with APS without prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular events or DM. Actual CVR (AR) was determined according to ESC guidelines, including carotid/femoral plaque presence. In low-moderate SCORE-predicted risk patients, classification ability and agreement for BP or lipid treatment was tested with Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC) and Cohen's kappa, respectively, using the AR classes as reference qualifiers. RESULTS: SCORE underestimated high/very-high-AR in >50% of cases. SCORE-guided BP/lipid treatment eligibility was 4.2%/12.6% for high, 10.5%/16.8% for very-high AR patients, while 5.3% of low-moderate AR cases were eligible for lipid-lowering therapy. For BP treatment, MCC was higher using DIME for low-moderate and very-high-risk (0.33 and 0.32, respectively), and using modified-SCORE+APSevents (MCC=0.25) for high-risk patients. Eligibility agreement was better with DIME+APSevents or aPLprofile (kappa=0.51) for high-risk, and DIME (kappa=0.31) for very-high-risk patients. For lipid treatment, both classification ability and eligibility agreement were stronger with SCORE (or modified-SCORE)+APSevents in low-moderate (MCC/kappa=0.43/0.41) and very-high risk (MCC/kappa=0.30/0.30), and with DIME+aPLprofile (MCC/kappa=0.50/0.50) in high-risk patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Multimodal risk assessment including disease-related and cardiometabolic features used for high-risk diseases such as DM can improve CVR management in APS.

Generic and disease-adapted cardiovascular risk scores as predictors of atherosclerosis progression in SLE.

OBJECTIVE: Studies show that generic cardiovascular risk (CVR) prediction tools may underestimate CVR in SLE. We examined, for the first time to our knowledge, whether generic and disease-adapted CVR scores may predict subclinical atherosclerosis progression in SLE. METHODS: We included all eligible patients with SLE without a history of cardiovascular events or diabetes mellitus, who had a 3-year carotid and femoral ultrasound follow-up examination. Five generic (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Risk Equation, Globorisk, Prospective Cardiovascular Münster) and three 'SLE-adapted' CVR scores (modified Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (mSCORE), modified Framingham Risk Score (mFRS), QRESEARCH Risk Estimator V.3 (QRISK3)) were calculated at baseline. The performance of CVR scores to predict atherosclerosis progression (defined as new atherosclerotic plaque development) was tested with Brier Score (BS), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), while rank correlation was tested with Harrell's c-index. Binary logistic regression was also applied to examine determinants of subclinical atherosclerosis progression. RESULTS: Twenty-six (21%) of 124 included patients (90% female, mean age 44.4±11.7 years) developed new atherosclerotic plaques after a mean of 39.7±3.8 months' follow-up period. Performance analysis showed that plaque progression was better predicted by the mFRS (BS 0.14, AUROC 0.80, MCC 0.22) and QRISK3 (BS 0.16, AUROC 0.75, MCC 0.25). c-Index showed no superiority for discrimination between mFRS and QRISK3. In the multivariate analysis, QRISK3 (OR 4.24, 95% CI 1.30 to 13.78, p=0.016) among the CVR prediction scores and age (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.21, p<0.001), cumulative glucocorticoid dose (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, p=0.010) and antiphospholipid antibodies (OR 3.66, 95% CI 1.24 to 10.80, p=0.019) among disease-related CVR factors were independently associated with plaque progression. CONCLUSIONS: Application of SLE-adapted CVR scores such as QRISK3 or mFRS, as well as monitoring for glucocorticoid exposure and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, can help to improve CVR assessment and management in SLE.

Underperformance of clinical risk scores in identifying vascular ultrasound-based high cardiovascular risk in systemic lupus erythematosus.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of eight clinical risk prediction scores to identify individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, as defined by the presence of atherosclerotic plaques. METHODS: CVD risk was estimated in 210 eligible SLE patients without prior CVD or diabetes mellitus (female: 93.3%, mean age: 44.8 ± 12 years) using five generic (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (ASCVD), Globorisk, Prospective Cardiovascular Münster Study risk calculator (PROCAM)) and three 'SLE-adapted' (modified-SCORE, modified-FRS, QRESEARCH risk estimator, version 3 (QRISK3)) CVD risk scores, as well as ultrasound examination of the carotid and femoral arteries. Calibration, discrimination and classification measures to identify high CVD risk based on the presence of atherosclerotic plaques were assessed for all risk models. CVD risk reclassification was applied for all scores by incorporating ultrasound results. RESULTS: Moderate calibration (p-value range from 0.38 to 0.63) and discrimination (area under the curve 0.73-0.84), and low-to-moderate sensitivity (8.3-71.4%) and classification ability (Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.25-0.47) were observed for all risk models to identify patients with plaques at any arterial site as high-risk. MCC was improved for modified-FRS versus FRS (0.43 vs 0.36), but not for modified-SCORE versus SCORE (0.25 vs 0.25). Based on plaque presence, CVD risk was upgraded to high-risk in 10%, 16.1%, 20.5%, 21.5%, 24%, 28.2% and 28.6% of cases classified as non-high-risk by QRISK3, modified-FRS, Globorisk, FRS/PROCAM, ASCVD, modified-SCORE and SCORE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the five generic and three 'SLE-adapted' clinical risk scores underestimated high CVD risk defined by atherosclerotic plaque presence in patients with SLE.

Underperformance of clinical risk scores in identifying vascular ultrasound-based high cardiovascular risk in systemic lupus erythematosus.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of eight clinical risk prediction scores to identify individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, as defined by the presence of atherosclerotic plaques. METHODS: CVD risk was estimated in 210 eligible SLE patients without prior CVD or diabetes mellitus (female: 93.3%, mean age: 44.8 ± 12 years) using five generic (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (ASCVD), Globorisk, Prospective Cardiovascular Münster Study risk calculator (PROCAM)) and three 'SLE-adapted' (modified-SCORE, modified-FRS, QRESEARCH risk estimator, version 3 (QRISK3)) CVD risk scores, as well as ultrasound examination of the carotid and femoral arteries. Calibration, discrimination and classification measures to identify high CVD risk based on the presence of atherosclerotic plaques were assessed for all risk models. CVD risk reclassification was applied for all scores by incorporating ultrasound results. RESULTS: Moderate calibration (p-value range from 0.38 to 0.63) and discrimination (area under the curve 0.73-0.84), and low-to-moderate sensitivity (8.3-71.4%) and classification ability (Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.25-0.47) were observed for all risk models to identify patients with plaques at any arterial site as high-risk. MCC was improved for modified-FRS versus FRS (0.43 vs 0.36), but not for modified-SCORE versus SCORE (0.25 vs 0.25). Based on plaque presence, CVD risk was upgraded to high-risk in 10%, 16.1%, 20.5%, 21.5%, 24%, 28.2% and 28.6% of cases classified as non-high-risk by QRISK3, modified-FRS, Globorisk, FRS/PROCAM, ASCVD, modified-SCORE and SCORE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the five generic and three 'SLE-adapted' clinical risk scores underestimated high CVD risk defined by atherosclerotic plaque presence in patients with SLE.

Pulse pressure amplification and cardiac autonomic dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The main aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the association between pulse pressure amplification (PPA) and cardiac autonomic activity (baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and heart rate variability (HRV)) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In addition, we examined the association between cardiac autonomic activity and central hemodynamic parameters that may affect PPA such as augmentation index (AIx), aortic stiffness (pulse wave velocity (PWV)), and common carotid artery stiffness distensibility coefficient (DC). A total of 142 patients with T2DM were included in the study. In multivariate linear regression analysis-after controlling for age, diabetes duration, height, waist circumference, aortic PWV, use of ß-blockers, and BRS-PPA was associated significantly and independently with male gender (standardized regression coefficient (ß) = 0.156, p = 0.007), aortic systolic blood pressure (ß = -0.221, p < 0.001), heart rate (ß = 0.521, p < 0.001), AΙx (ß = -0.443, p < 0.001), and parameters of HRV, such as total power of HRV (ß = -0.157, p = 0.005). No significant associations were found between BRS or parameters of HRV with aortic PWV, AIx, or DC. In patients with T2DM, cardiac autonomic dysfunction was associated with enhanced PPA. This association was independent from the well-described effect of resting heart rate, as well as from traditional cardiovascular risk factors or diabetes-related factors. Moreover, it was not mediated by effects of the autonomic dysfunction on arterial stiffness or on pressure wave reflections. These findings suggest that cardiac autonomic dysfunction affects PPA by mechanisms other than resting tachycardia and arterial properties.