Time and dose-dependent effect of systemic glucocorticoids on major adverse cardiovascular event in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objectives

Cardiovascular event (CVE) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was increased by glucocorticoids (GC) use. Whether there is a threshold dose and duration of GC use beyond which will increase CVE rate remains controversial. We studied the time-varying effect of GC and its dose on the risk of incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with RA.

Methods

Patients with RA without MACE at baseline were recruited from a Hong Kong citywide database from 2006 to 2015 and followed till 2018. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an MACE. Cox regression and inverse probability treatment weighting analyses with time-varying covariates were used to evaluate the association of GC and MACE, adjusting for demographics, traditional CV risk factors, inflammatory markers and the usage of antirheumatic drugs.

Results

Among 12 233 RA patients with 105 826 patient-years of follow-up and a mean follow-up duration of 8.7 years, 860 (7.0%) developed MACE. In the time-varying analyses after controlling for confounding factors, a daily prednisolone dose of ≥5 mg significantly increased the risk of MACE (erythrocyte sedimentation rate model: HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.37; C reactive protein model: HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.18), while a daily dose below 5 mg was not associated with MACE risk, compared with no GC use. In patients receiving daily prednisolone ≥5 mg, the risk of incident MACE was increased by 7% per month.

Conclusions

GC was associated with a duration and dose-dependent increased risk of MACE in patients with RA. Very low dose prednisolone (<5 mg daily) did not appear to confer excessive CV risk.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women.

P Ridker, C Hennekens, J E Buring … (2000)

Since inflammation is believed to have a role in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular events, measurement of markers of inflammation has been proposed as a method to improve the prediction of the risk of these events. We conducted a prospective, nested case-control study among 28,263 apparently healthy postmenopausal women over a mean follow-up period of three years to assess the risk of cardiovascular events associated with base-line levels of markers of inflammation. The markers included high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), serum amyloid A, interleukin-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule type 1 (sICAM-1). We also studied homocysteine and a variety of lipid and lipoprotein measurements. Cardiovascular events were defined as death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, or the need for coronary-revascularization procedures. Of the 12 markers measured, hs-CRP was the strongest univariate predictor of the risk of cardiovascular events; the relative risk of events for women in the highest as compared with the lowest quartile for this marker was 4.4 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.2 to 8.9). Other markers significantly associated with the risk of cardiovascular events were serum amyloid A (relative risk for the highest as compared with the lowest quartile, 3.0), sICAM-1 (2.6), interleukin-6 (2.2), homocysteine (2.0), total cholesterol (2.4), LDL cholesterol (2.4), apolipoprotein B-100 (3.4), HDL cholesterol (0.3), and the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol (3.4). Prediction models that incorporated markers of inflammation in addition to lipids were significantly better at predicting risk than models based on lipid levels alone (P<0.001). The levels of hs-CRP and serum amyloid A were significant predictors of risk even in the subgroup of women with LDL cholesterol levels below 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter), the target for primary prevention established by the National Cholesterol Education Program. In multivariate analyses, the only plasma markers that independently predicted risk were hs-CRP (relative risk for the highest as compared with the lowest quartile, 1.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.1) and the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol (relative risk, 1.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.9). The addition of the measurement of C-reactive protein to screening based on lipid levels may provide an improved method of identifying persons at risk for cardiovascular events.

0 comments Cited 314 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.

Lane Burgette, Rajeev Ramchand, Daniel Almirall … (2013)

The use of propensity scores to control for pretreatment imbalances on observed variables in non-randomized or observational studies examining the causal effects of treatments or interventions has become widespread over the past decade. For settings with two conditions of interest such as a treatment and a control, inverse probability of treatment weighted estimation with propensity scores estimated via boosted models has been shown in simulation studies to yield causal effect estimates with desirable properties. There are tools (e.g., the twang package in R) and guidance for implementing this method with two treatments. However, there is not such guidance for analyses of three or more treatments. The goals of this paper are twofold: (1) to provide step-by-step guidance for researchers who want to implement propensity score weighting for multiple treatments and (2) to propose the use of generalized boosted models (GBM) for estimation of the necessary propensity score weights. We define the causal quantities that may be of interest to studies of multiple treatments and derive weighted estimators of those quantities. We present a detailed plan for using GBM to estimate propensity scores and using those scores to estimate weights and causal effects. We also provide tools for assessing balance and overlap of pretreatment variables among treatment groups in the context of multiple treatments. A case study examining the effects of three treatment programs for adolescent substance abuse demonstrates the methods. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 284 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update

Josef Smolen, Robert Landewé, Sytske Bergstra … (2022)

Objectives To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3–6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.