You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Co-morbidities
Original research
Generic and disease-adapted cardiovascular risk scores as predictors of atherosclerosis progression in SLE
  1. Stylianos Panopoulos1,
  2. George C Drosos2,
  3. George Konstantonis2,
  4. Petros P Sfikakis1,2 and
  5. Maria G Tektonidou1,2
  1. 1Rheumatology Unit, First Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Joint Academic Rheumatology Program, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Greece
  2. 2Cardiovascular Risk Research Laboratory, First Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Greece
  1. Correspondence to Dr Maria G Tektonidou; mtektonidou{at}gmail.com

Abstract

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.

  • systemic lupus erythematosus
  • atherosclerosis
  • ultrasonography
  • cardiovascular diseases

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data analysed in this study are available by a reasonable request to the corresponding author.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2022-000864

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.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Despite accumulating data on the increased cardiovascular disease risk (CVR) in SLE compared with the general population, evidence about the performance of traditional (generic) CVR assessment tools versus those incorporating SLE diagnosis (SLE-adapted) is inconclusive. Subclinical atherosclerosis is frequent in SLE and predicts future cardiovascular events. This study examines for the first time the performance of multiple generic and ‘SLE-adapted’ cardiovascular risk (CVR) scores to predict vascular ultrasound-detected atherosclerosis progression in SLE.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • SLE-adapted scores such as the modified Framingham Risk Score and QRESEARCH Risk Estimator V.3 (QRISK3) performed better than generic risk tools to predict atherosclerotic plaque progression in SLE. QRISK3 among CVR scores, and cumulative glucocorticoid exposure and antiphospholipid antibodies among disease-related risk factors were independently associated with new plaque development.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • Generic risk scores compared with SLE-adapted tools are less efficient to predict the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE, which may lead to suboptimal management of CVR. Application of SLE-adapted risk scores, as well as strict monitoring of disease-specific features such as glucocorticoid exposure and antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) positivity, may improve CVR assessment and management in SLE. Validation of our findings in larger studies will help to improve cardiovascular health in these patients.

    Introduction

    Cardiovascular disease is one of the most common causes of death, along with infections, in SLE,1 2 a prototype rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorder (RMD) primarily affecting young adults. Cardiovascular risk (CVR) in patients with SLE is 2-fold to 10-fold higher compared with the general population,3 4 with higher relative risk of myocardial infarction and stroke reported in women of younger age.5–7 Subclinical atherosclerosis, an early indicator of cardiovascular disease,8 is also frequent in patients with SLE with a threefold to fourfold increased risk of carotid plaques compared with the general population9–11 and a higher or comparable risk versus other diseases of increased CVR burden, such as rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes mellitus (DM).12

    Measures for CVR assessment in SLE include generic CVR prediction tools and ‘SLE-adapted’ risk equations that incorporate the presence of SLE and/or disease features.13 14 The validity of various generic CVR prediction tools is not fully elucidated, while evidence about the preferential use of disease-specific risk tools is inconclusive.13–19 The recent ‘EULAR Recommendations for CVR Management in RMDs Including SLE and Antiphospholipid Syndrome’ did not endorse the use of any particular CVR assessment tool due to limitations of the current evidence.12

    Aside from the established role of generic risk calculators to predict long-term cardiovascular events in the general population,8 some studies have also shown their predictive value to assess atherosclerosis progression on vascular imaging.20–22 Due to high atherosclerosis burden and the high risk of asymptomatic plaque progression in SLE associated with future cardiovascular events,8–11 the evaluation of multiple generic and SLE-adapted scores as potential predictors of subclinical atherosclerosis progression in patients with SLE is of high clinical significance.

    The aim of this study is to examine whether various generic and SLE-modified CVR scores can predict the development of new atherosclerotic plaques in a 3-year follow-up vascular ultrasound study in SLE.

    Methods

    Study population

    We included all eligible patients followed up in our academic centre who fulfilled the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for SLE23 and had a vascular ultrasound examination at baseline and after 3 years of follow-up by the end of March 2020 (COVID-19 outbreak in Greece). Patients with SLE who concurrently fulfilled the criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) were also included.24 We excluded from data analysis patients with a history of clinically established coronary artery disease (angina, myocardial infarction or coronary artery revascularisation procedure) or cerebrovascular disease (stroke, transient ischaemic attack or carotid artery revascularisation procedure) of atherosclerotic origin or atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease and patients with DM. Eight patients declined the follow-up ultrasound examination (flow chart, online supplemental figure S1).

    Supplemental material

    Study design

    All study participants underwent a baseline vascular ultrasound assessment for the detection of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid and femoral arteries. The participants were re-evaluated by vascular ultrasound approximately 3 years after the baseline visit. The following baseline characteristics were recorded at the time of baseline and the 3-year follow-up vascular ultrasound: age, disease-related features (disease duration, disease activity assessed by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), disease damage assessed by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SLICC/ACR DI), antinuclear and anti-dsDNA antibodies, C3 and C4 levels, antiphospholipid antibodies including anticardiolipin and anti-β2GPI antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, which were measured and considered positive according to the laboratory classification criteria for APS,24 lupus nephritis and chronic kidney disease (defined as the presence of glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min), and medications: immunosuppressives, glucocorticoids use and their cumulative dose at the end of follow-up and during the 3-year follow-up period, while hydroxychloroquine, antihypertensives, statins and antiplatelets were recorded at baseline, at the end of follow-up, and during the follow-up period (reported as use over the 75% and 100% of time between the baseline and last follow-up visit). CVR factors included history of smoking (current or ever, pack-years), arterial hypertension (defined as use of antihypertensive treatment or blood pressure higher than 139/89 mm Hg as average of three sequential readings with 1 min interval in the supine position after at least 10 min of rest), hyperlipidaemia (defined as use of lipid-lowering medication and/or total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL and/or low-density lipoprotein ≥130 mg/dL and/or triglycerides ≥160 mg/dL), obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and family history of coronary artery disease.

    Vascular ultrasound examination

    All vascular ultrasound evaluations were performed by the same blinded assessor (GK). Subclinical atherosclerosis was assessed by the presence of plaques in a total of eight arterial beds (left and right, common and internal, carotid arteries and carotid bulb, and both common femoral arteries) by ultrasound. Atherosclerotic plaques were defined as the local increase of the intima–media thickness (IMT) of >50% compared with the surrounding vessel wall, an IMT of >1.5 mm or local thickening of >0.5 mm.25 Progression of atherosclerosis was defined as either (1) new appearance of plaques in individuals without plaques at baseline or (2) increase in number of plaques in individuals who already had plaques at the same carotid or femoral artery. Measurements were performed using high-resolution B-mode ultrasound (Vivid 7 Pro, GE Healthcare) with a 12 MHz linear matrix array transducer.

    CVR scores

    The following five generic CVR scores were calculated for all study participants: the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) score26; the Framingham 10-year risk score for coronary heart disease (Framingham Risk Score (FRS))27; the Pooled Cohort Risk Equation (PCRE) score28; the Globorisk score29; and the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) score.30 Additionally, three SLE-adapted scores were calculated for all participants: the modified Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (mSCORE) (a 1.5-times multiplier to SCORE is applied),8 the modified Framingham Risk Score (mFRS) (a 2.0-times multiplier to FRS is applied)31 and the QRESEARCH Risk Estimator V.3 (QRISK3), which includes SLE as an independent CVR factor.32 Details about each score are presented in online supplemental table 1.

    Statistical analysis

    All data were assessed for normal distribution. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages and compared with the χ2 test. Continuous variables were presented as mean±SD or median with IQR; subgroup comparison was made with Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. The performance of each of eight CVR scores to predict the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis was assessed with Brier Score (BS), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, while rank correlation was tested with Harrell’s c-index.

    Logistic regression models were used to assess determinants of atherosclerotic plaque progression. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and treatment parameters (including baseline and end of follow-up medication use, use for at least 75% of the follow-up period or the entire follow-up period (100%), and cumulative dose (in gram) for corticosteroids) were included in the univariate analysis and those found statistically significant (p<0.1), along with clinical considerations, were entered in the multivariate model. We additionally performed a second model (model 2) including only the variables with a p value of <0.05 in the univariate analysis. At a second step, one generic or SLE-adapted risk score was added each time in the logistic regression model to examine their potential role as independent predictors for plaque progression. A cut-off value of p<0.05 was set to denote statistical significance except for the univariate analysis where the cut-off p value was <0.1. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V.25.0 and MedCalc analysis V.14.2.

    Results

    In total, 124 Caucasian patients with SLE (90% female, mean age 44.4±11.7 years, mean disease duration 8.8±7.5 years) were included in the study. The mean follow-up period was 39.7±3.8 months, and the range of the time span between the two ultrasound examinations was 30–47 months. The mean SLEDAI-2K was 2.4±3.0, and the SLICC/ACR DI was 0.8±1.0. Thirty-eight patients fulfilled also the classification criteria for APS.24

    At baseline, atherosclerotic plaques were evident in 30 patients, and more specifically carotid plaques were detected in 25 patients, femoral plaques in 19, and at both sites in 14 patients. After a mean of 39.7±3.8 months’ follow-up, progression of subclinical atherosclerosis (new atherosclerotic plaques) was observed in 26 patients: 9 with and 17 without the presence of plaques at baseline. Characteristics of study participants and risk estimates by the different generic and SLE-adapted CVR scores at baseline are shown in tables 1 and 2, respectively.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Demographics and clinical characteristics at baseline of 124 patients with SLE with or without vascular ultrasound-confirmed atherosclerosis and with or without progression of atherosclerosis

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Mean values of generic and SLE-adapted cardiovascular risk scores at baseline of 124 patients with SLE with or without vascular ultrasound-confirmed atherosclerosis and with or without progression of atherosclerosis

    The performance of five generic and three SLE-adapted CVR scores to predict the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis, according to BS, ROC analysis and MCC, is depicted in table 3 and figure 1 and in online supplemental file 1. As presented, mFRS and QRISK3 showed the best overall performance (BS 0.14 and 0.16, respectively) and classification ability (MCC 0.22 and 0.25, respectively). Additionally, ROC analysis displayed a fair-to-good discriminatory capacity for all risk models (area under the curve (AUC) values from 0.66 to 0.80), while both mFRS and QRISK3 presented the highest AUC among examined scores. The c-index showed no superiority for discrimination between mFRS and QRISK3 (figure 1).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Performance of cardiovascular risk prediction models for plaque progression in 124 patients with SLE

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Receiver operating characteristic analysis evaluating the performance of mFRS and QRISK3 to predict the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with SLE (discriminatory difference in area under the curve compared by c-index: 0.80 vs 0.75, p=0.37). mFRS, modified Framingham Risk Score; QRISK3: QRESARCH Risk Estimator V.3.

    Multivariate analysis of plaque progression showed that 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) were independently associated with plaque progression (model 1, table 4). Among the different risk scores, QRISK3 (OR 4.24, 95% CI 1.30 to 13.78, p=0.016) was the only independent predictor for plaque progression, after adjustment of potential confounders (model 1, table 5). The aforementioned associations were confirmed in the additional multiple regression models (model 2, table 4, and model 2, table 5, respectively) including only the variables with a p value less than 0.05 (age, cumulative glucocorticoid dose and antiphospholipid antibodies) in the univariate analysis (online supplemental table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Multivariate regression analysis of atherosclerotic plaque progression in 124 patients with SLE

    View this table:
    Table 5

    OR for each cardiovascular risk score to predict the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in 124 patients with SLE

    Discussion

    In the present study, we examined for the first time to our knowledge the performance of various generic and SLE-adapted CVR scores to predict the development of new atherosclerotic plaques in patients with SLE over a 3-year follow-up period. SLE-adapted risk scores such as QRISK3 and mFRS performed better than the generic tools.

    The results of the present study further support previous observations from our group and others demonstrating that generic CVR scores inadequately identify high CVR as defined by the presence of atherosclerotic plaques.15–17 Their low performance to predict future progression of atherosclerosis is also consistent with evidence from some prospective studies reporting underperformance of several generic scores to predict future cardiovascular events in SLE,15 18 limiting their role to guide CVR management in these patients.

    Studies in the general population have shown a significant association between several generic risk scores and the incidence of subclinical atherosclerosis in healthy individuals and a good performance to predict the formation of new atherosclerotic plaques in prospective studies in asymptomatic populations.20–22 A large multicentre study in young adults examined the performance of the FRS, Reynolds, SCORE, PROCAM and Finrisk CVR scores to predict a 6-year subclinical atherosclerosis progression assessed by carotid IMT and plaques, carotid artery distensibility and brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation, concluding that preclinical CVR as measured by these modalities can be assessed with any of the aforementioned scores.20 Inadequate performance of the same generic CVR scores to predict progression of plaque formation in the present study supports the need for further investigation about their routine use for CVR management in SLE.13 16 Lack of weighting for disease-specific features with a potential inadequate weighting also for traditional CVR factors which are often more prevalent in SLE in comparison to the general population33 may explain the underperformance of generic CVR scores in this group of patients.13 34 35

    Among the disease-specific risk scores, both QRISK3 and mFRS showed good overall performance for the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis, while the multivariate analysis confirmed that QRISK3 was an independent predictor for future development of new plaques. Conversely, mSCORE failed both as a discriminator and a predictor of the progression of atherosclerosis, indicating that a multiplication by 1.5 may not accurately reflect the impact of SLE as additional risk factor. Indeed, evidence from the general population suggests that multipliers, although seemingly practical to employ in the clinical setting, may not accurately incorporate the critical impact of risk factor prevalence.36

    In our study, the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis was twice as much prevalent in patients with no plaques (n=17) versus those with plaque presence (n=9) at baseline, indicating the increased propensity for early development of new plaques in SLE. While QRISK3 missed a lower but not negligible proportion of high-risk patients according to plaque presence at baseline in a previous study from our group,16 a good performance to predict plaque progression and a significant association with plaque progression in multivariate analysis was detected in the current study, supporting its role as a promising tool for CVR assessment in SLE. A positive correlation between QRISK3 and carotid IMT, carotid distention and diameter analysis, arterial stiffness,37 pulse wave velocity38 and carotid plaques39 has been previously described. Regrettably, validation studies for cardiovascular events in multiethnic datasets are scarce for QRISK3, supporting the need for studies in individuals from various geographical settings as well as external validation in large, multicentre SLE populations.13 In a recent prospective study including 1887 patients with SLE (232 developed cardiovascular events), mFRS was superior to FRS and performed similarly to QRISK3 in the prediction of cardiovascular event development at/within 10 years.15

    Regarding disease-specific determinants for the progression of atherosclerotic plaques in patients with SLE, our analysis disclosed that cumulative glucocorticoid dose and aPL positivity were independent predictors. The presence of aPL showed the strongest association with the development of new plaques compared with any other individual risk predictor, and aPL positivity is known to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular events in SLE.13 33 35 Moreover, aPL presence has been associated with accelerated atherosclerosis in SLE and even in asymptomatic aPL carriers,40–42 highlighting the need for aPL assessment in SLE and even greater diligence for optimal CVR evaluation and management in aPL-positive patients with SLE. Glucocorticoid use, a modifiable risk factor that represents a major preventive target,13 has been also reported to be an independent predictor of atherosclerosis progression and cardiovascular events in SLE, though the best measure of glucocorticoid exposure (current use, median daily or cumulative dose) as a predictor of cardiovascular damage has yet to be fully determined.13 43 In addition to the cumulative glucocorticoid dose between their first (ever) administration and the end of follow-up, the cumulative dose over the 3-year follow-up period was also added in the analysis (online supplemental table 2, univariate analysis) so as to further examine the impact of the between the two ultrasound examinations dose of glucocorticoids on plaque progression. Remarkably, none of the aforementioned SLE features are included in any of the examined SLE-adapted CVR prediction models nor have been investigated as risk modifiers to tailor risk factor management to individual clinical phenotypes. Their recognition as CVR modifiers will help to incorporate their regular assessment and management in daily practice, for example, by introducing a prophylactic treatment with low-dose aspirin in patients with high-risk aPL profile13 44 and minimising glucocorticoid exposure, in order to reduce cardiovascular harm.13

    Lupus nephritis or renal failure has not been associated with plaque progression in the univariate analysis (online supplemental table 2), although previous studies have shown its association with both subclinical atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events in SLE.45 46 The persistent use (at least 75% and 100% of follow-up time) of antiplatelets, statins, antihypertensives and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) during the 3-year follow-up period was included in the univariate analysis, but no statistical significance was demonstrated for any of these treatments (online supplemental table 2). HCQ has been shown to prevent thrombotic cardiovascular events in several retrospective and prospective studies in SLE, and especially its long duration.13 47 48 In our study, HCQ use was not found to have a protective role against subclinical atherosclerosis progression. This can be attributed to the fact that the vast majority of patients (approximately 80%) were on HCQ treatment both at baseline and during the follow-up time (table 1). In addition, a recent meta-analysis has shown that HCQ is not associated with subclinical atherosclerosis markers such as the presence of plaques or increased IMT.49 This supports the distinction between subclinical atherosclerosis and vascular events since other factors such as inflammatory and prothrombotic states may also contribute to cardiovascular events in SLE.49

    Interestingly, patients with no plaques at baseline developed almost twice more frequently new plaques during the 3-year follow-up. This may be explained by the fact that physicians tend to prescribe statins or antiplatelets in patients with arterial plaques even without the indication based on their lipid levels. Patients with versus those without plaques at baseline received more frequent statins at the time of first and last ultrasound examination and during the 75% and 100% of follow-up period (all p<0.05). No significant difference was detected in aspirin use at baseline, end of follow-up and 75% of follow-up period between the two groups. Our study has some limitations. The sample of our study is rather small; however, this is one of the largest samples included in vascular ultrasound follow-up studies in SLE.50–53 All our patients were white Europeans, limiting the generalisability of our results to other populations. It should be also acknowledged that the CVR calculators used in our study were originally developed to predict the risk of future cardiovascular events; however, subclinical atherosclerosis is recognised as a major predictor for future cardiovascular events both in the general population6 and in patients with SLE,54 as well as an established modifier for CVR management.6 Additionally, three of the examined CVR scores (QRISK3, PCRE and PROCAM) have yet to be validated in the Greek population, though they have all been introduced for risk estimation in European populations.

    Το conclude, the results of our study suggest that the generic CVR calculators compared with the SLE-adapted risk scores are less efficient to predict the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE, which may lead to suboptimal management of CVR in affected patients. Application of SLE-adapted risk scores, as well as strict monitoring of disease-specific features such as glucocorticoid exposure and aPL positivity presence, may improve CVR assessment and management in patients with SLE.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. All data analysed in this study are available by a reasonable request to the corresponding author.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This study involves human participants and was approved by Laiko General Hospital Scientific Committee (ΙRB number 16506). The participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Tektonidou MG,
      2. Lewandowski LB,
      3. Hu J, et al
      . Survival in adults and children with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of studies from 1950 to 2016. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:2009–16. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211663
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Souza DCC,
      2. Santo AH,
      3. Sato EI
      . Mortality profile related to systemic lupus erythematosus: a multiple cause-of-death analysis. J Rheumatol 2012;39:496–503. doi:10.3899/jrheum.110241
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Tektonidou MG,
      2. Wang Z,
      3. Ward MM
      . Brief report: trends in hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndromes and stroke in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, 1996 to 2012. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016;68:2680–5. doi:10.1002/art.39758
      OpenUrl
    4. ↵
      1. Barbhaiya M,
      2. Feldman CH,
      3. Chen SK, et al
      . Comparative risks of cardiovascular disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, diabetes mellitus, and in general Medicaid recipients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2020;72:1431–9. doi:10.1002/acr.24328
      OpenUrl
    5. ↵
      1. Manzi S,
      2. Meilahn EN,
      3. Rairie JE, et al
      . Age-Specific incidence rates of myocardial infarction and angina in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison with the Framingham study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:408–15. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009122
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Yazdany J,
      2. Pooley N,
      3. Langham J, et al
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus; stroke and myocardial infarction risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. RMD Open 2020;6. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001247
    7. ↵
      1. Arnaud L,
      2. Tektonidou MG
      . Long-term outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus: trends over time and major contributors. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;59:V29–38. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaa382
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      1. Piepoli MF,
      2. Hoes AW,
      3. Agewall S, et al
      . 2016 european guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the sixth joint task force of the european society of cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts)developed with the special contribution of the european association for cardiovascular prevention & rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J 2016;37:2315–81. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Wu G-C,
      2. Liu H-R,
      3. Leng R-X, et al
      . Subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmun Rev 2016;15:22–37. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2015.10.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Henrot P,
      2. Foret J,
      3. Barnetche T, et al
      . Assessment of subclinical atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Joint Bone Spine 2018;85:155–63. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.12.009
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Roman MJ,
      2. Shanker B-A,
      3. Davis A, et al
      . Prevalence and correlates of accelerated atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2399–406. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa035471
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Tektonidou MG,
      2. Kravvariti E,
      3. Konstantonis G, et al
      . Subclinical atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: comparable risk with diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmunity Reviews 2017;16:308–12. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2017.01.009
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Drosos GC,
      2. Vedder D,
      3. Houben E, et al
      . EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:768–79. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221733
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Colaco K,
      2. Ocampo V,
      3. Ayala AP, et al
      . Predictive utility of cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a systematic review. J Rheumatol 2020;47:928–38. doi:10.3899/jrheum.190261
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Jafri K,
      2. Ogdie A,
      3. Qasim A, et al
      . 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. Clin Rheumatol 2018;37:467–74. doi:10.1007/s10067-017-3860-x
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Sivakumaran J,
      2. Harvey P,
      3. Omar A, et al
      . Assessment of cardiovascular risk tools as predictors of cardiovascular disease events in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus Sci Med 2021;8:e000448. doi:10.1136/lupus-2020-000448
    17. ↵
      1. Drosos GC,
      2. Konstantonis G,
      3. Sfikakis PP, et al
      . Underperformance of clinical risk scores in identifying vascular ultrasound-based high cardiovascular risk in systemic lupus erythematosus. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2020:204748732090665. doi:10.1177/2047487320906650
    18. ↵
      1. Chung CP,
      2. Oeser A,
      3. Avalos I, et al
      . Cardiovascular risk scores and the presence of subclinical coronary artery atherosclerosis in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2006;15:562–9. doi:10.1177/0961203306071870
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Zhu L,
      2. Singh M,
      3. Lele S, et al
      . Assessing the validity of QRISK3 in predicting cardiovascular events in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus Sci Med 2022;9:e000564. doi:10.1136/lupus-2021-000564
    20. ↵
      1. R.H. Raiko J,
      2. Magnussen CG,
      3. Kivimäki M, et al
      . Cardiovascular risk scores in the prediction of subclinical atherosclerosis in young adults: evidence from the cardiovascular risk in a young finns study. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 2010;17:549–55. doi:10.1097/HJR.0b013e3283386419
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      1. DeFilippis AP,
      2. Blaha MJ,
      3. Ndumele CE, et al
      . The association of Framingham and reynolds risk scores with incidence and progression of coronary artery calcification in MESA (multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2011;58:2076–83. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.022
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Mitu O,
      2. Crisan A,
      3. Redwood S, et al
      . The relationship between cardiovascular risk scores and several markers of subclinical atherosclerosis in an asymptomatic population. JCM 2021;10:955. doi:10.3390/jcm10050955
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      1. Petri M,
      2. Orbai A-M,
      3. Alarcón GS, et al
      . Derivation and validation of the systemic lupus international collaborating clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2012;64:2677–86. doi:10.1002/art.34473
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Miyakis S,
      2. Lockshin MD,
      3. Atsumi T, et al
      . International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2006;4:295–306. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01753.x
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      1. Roman MJ,
      2. Naqvi TZ,
      3. Gardin JM, et al
      . Clinical application of noninvasive vascular ultrasound in cardiovascular risk stratification: a report from the American Society of echocardiography and the Society of vascular medicine and biology. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 2006;19:943–54. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2006.04.020
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Conroy RM,
      2. Pyörälä K,
      3. Fitzgerald AP, et al
      . Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the score project. European Heart Journal 2003;24:987–1003. doi:10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00114-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. D’Agostino RB,
      2. Vasan RS,
      3. Pencina MJ, et al
      . General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care. Circulation 2008;117:743–53. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Goff DC,
      2. Lloyd-Jones DM,
      3. Bennett G, et al
      . 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;129:S49–73. doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Hajifathalian K,
      2. Ueda P,
      3. Lu Y, et al
      . A novel risk score to predict cardiovascular disease risk in national populations (globorisk): a pooled analysis of prospective cohorts and health examination surveys. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2015;3:339–55. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00081-9
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Assmann G,
      2. Cullen P,
      3. Schulte H
      . Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular münster (PROCAM) study. Circulation 2002;105:310–5. doi:10.1161/hc0302.102575
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      1. Urowitz MB,
      2. Ibañez D,
      3. Su J, et al
      . Modified Framingham risk factor score for systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2016;43:875–9. doi:10.3899/jrheum.150983
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Hippisley-Cox J,
      2. Coupland C,
      3. Brindle P
      . Development and validation of QRISK3 risk prediction algorithms to estimate future risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2017;357:j2099. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2099
    33. ↵
      1. Bessant R,
      2. Duncan R,
      3. Ambler G, et al
      . Prevalence of conventional and lupus-specific risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a case–control study. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:892–9. doi:10.1002/art.22343
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Petri MA,
      2. Barr E,
      3. Magder LS
      . Development of a systemic lupus erythematosus cardiovascular risk equation. Lupus Sci Med 2019;6:e000346. doi:10.1136/lupus-2019-000346
    35. ↵
      1. Ballocca F,
      2. D’Ascenzo F,
      3. Moretti C, et al
      . Predictors of cardiovascular events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiolog 2015;22:1435–41. doi:10.1177/2047487314546826
      OpenUrl
    36. ↵
      1. Kooter AJ,
      2. Kostense PJ,
      3. Groenewold J, et al
      . Integrating information from novel risk factors with calculated risks: the critical impact of risk factor prevalence. Circulation 2011;124:741–5. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.035725
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    37. ↵
      1. Vázquez-Del Mercado M,
      2. Perez-Vazquez F de J,
      3. Gomez-Bañuelos E, et al
      . Subclinical parameters of arterial stiffness and arteriosclerosis correlate with QRISK3 in systemic lupus erythematosus. PLoS One 2018;13:e0207520. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207520
    38. ↵
      1. Edwards N,
      2. Langford-Smith AWW,
      3. Parker BJ, et al
      . QRISK3 improves detection of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus Sci Med 2018;5:e000272. doi:10.1136/lupus-2018-000272
    39. ↵
      1. Quevedo-Abeledo JC,
      2. Caceres L,
      3. Palazuelos C, et al
      . QRISK3 relation to carotid plaque is higer than that of score in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2022;61:1408–16. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab531
      OpenUrl
    40. ↵
      1. Kravvariti E,
      2. Konstantonis G,
      3. Sfikakis PP, et al
      . Progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus versus rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of low disease activity. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018;57:2158–66. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/key233
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Di Minno MND,
      2. Emmi G,
      3. Ambrosino P, et al
      . Subclinical atherosclerosis in asymptomatic carriers of persistent antiphospholipid antibodies positivity: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Cardiology 2019;274:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.06.010
      OpenUrl
    42. ↵
      1. Majka DS,
      2. Liu K,
      3. Pope RM, et al
      . Antiphospholipid antibodies and sub-clinical atherosclerosis in the coronary artery risk development in young adults (cardia) cohort. Inflamm Res 2013;62:919–27. doi:10.1007/s00011-013-0652-x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Ugarte-Gil MF,
      2. Mak A,
      3. Leong J, et al
      . Impact of glucocorticoids on the incidence of lupus-related major organ damage: a systematic literature review and meta-regression analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Lupus Sci Med 2021;8:e000590. doi:10.1136/lupus-2021-000590
    44. ↵
      1. Tektonidou MG,
      2. Andreoli L,
      3. Limper M, et al
      . EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1296–304. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215213
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Sun EY,
      2. Alvarez C,
      3. Sheikh SZ
      . Association of lupus nephritis with coronary artery disease by ISN/RPS classification: results from a large real‐world lupus population. ACR Open Rheuma 2019;1:244–50. doi:10.1002/acr2.1035
      OpenUrl
    46. ↵
      1. Gustafsson JT,
      2. Herlitz Lindberg M,
      3. Gunnarsson I, et al
      . Excess atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus, -A matter of renal involvement: case control study of 281 SLE patients and 281 individually matched population controls. PLoS One 2017;12:e0174572. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174572
    47. ↵
      1. Tektonidou MG,
      2. Laskari K,
      3. Panagiotakos DB, et al
      . Risk factors for thrombosis and primary thrombosis prevention in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with or without antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:29–36. doi:10.1002/art.24232
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Ugarte A,
      2. Garcia de Bustos A,
      3. Ruiz-Arruza I, et al
      . Anti-Phospholipid antibodies do not predict damage in SLE patients in the 21st century-an observational study from the lupus-cruces cohort. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021;61:249–57. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab307
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      1. Oliveira CB,
      2. Kaplan MJ
      . Cardiovascular disease risk and pathogenesis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Semin Immunopathol 2022;44:309–24. doi:10.1007/s00281-022-00922-y
      OpenUrl
    50. ↵
      1. Roman MJ,
      2. Crow MK,
      3. Lockshin MD, et al
      . Rate and determinants of progression of atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:3412–9. doi:10.1002/art.22924
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      1. Telles RW,
      2. Lanna CCD,
      3. Sousa AJ, et al
      . Progression of carotid atherosclerosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol 2013;32:1293–300. doi:10.1007/s10067-013-2264-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Kiani AN,
      2. Post WS,
      3. Magder LS, et al
      . Predictors of progression in atherosclerosis over 2 years in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011;50:2071–9. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ker285
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Roldan PC,
      2. Greene ER,
      3. Qualls CR, et al
      . Progression of atherosclerosis versus arterial stiffness with age within and between arteries in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatol Int 2019;39:1027–36. doi:10.1007/s00296-019-04267-y
      OpenUrl
    54. ↵
      1. Bakshi J,
      2. Croca SC,
      3. Griffin M, et al
      . Extent of vascular plaque predicts future cardiovascular events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology 2022;62:225–33. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keac259
      OpenUrl

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SP: methodology, formal analysis and writing of the original draft; GCD: methodology, validation and writing (review and editing); GK: formal analysis and investigation; PPS: writing (review and editing); MGT: conceptualisation, methodology, validation and writing (review and editing), supervision, full responsibility for the work and the conduct of the study (guarantor) .

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.