Cargando…

Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and this risk is increased in patients with SLE who may not conform to traditional cardiovascular risk profiles. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of high CVD risk among patients with SLE calculated using different risk...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boulos, Daniel, Koelmeyer, Rachel L, Morand, Eric F, Hoi, Alberta Y
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2017-000212
_version_ 1783281960049704960
author Boulos, Daniel
Koelmeyer, Rachel L
Morand, Eric F
Hoi, Alberta Y
author_facet Boulos, Daniel
Koelmeyer, Rachel L
Morand, Eric F
Hoi, Alberta Y
author_sort Boulos, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and this risk is increased in patients with SLE who may not conform to traditional cardiovascular risk profiles. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of high CVD risk among patients with SLE calculated using different risk calculators, and to characterise those identified as high risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis to estimate CVD risk using the Framingham Risk Equation (Framingham score) and an SLE-specific CVD risk equation (SLE score) was undertaken using data from a single centre cohort. The characteristics of patients identified as ‘high risk’ by the SLE score only (the ‘missed group’) were compared with those identified by the Framingham score (the ‘conventional group’). RESULTS: 146 patients were included; 22 (15%) and 44 (30%) were determined to be at ‘high risk’ based on the Framingham and SLE scores, respectively. Patients in the ‘missed group’ were less likely to have traditional risk factors and were more likely to be female (81% vs 50%; p=0.03), younger (mean age 54 vs 69 years p<0.01) and have lower systolic blood pressure (132 vs 143 mm Hg; p=0.05). Of those deemed high risk, only a minority were treated to target blood pressure and lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients with SLE could be re-classified as high risk using a formula that incorporates SLE disease-related parameters. These patients have different profiles to those identified using a conventional risk model. Optimal CVD risk assessment and management warrants further attention in SLE.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5704739
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57047392017-12-06 Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us? Boulos, Daniel Koelmeyer, Rachel L Morand, Eric F Hoi, Alberta Y Lupus Sci Med Co-Morbidities BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and this risk is increased in patients with SLE who may not conform to traditional cardiovascular risk profiles. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of high CVD risk among patients with SLE calculated using different risk calculators, and to characterise those identified as high risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis to estimate CVD risk using the Framingham Risk Equation (Framingham score) and an SLE-specific CVD risk equation (SLE score) was undertaken using data from a single centre cohort. The characteristics of patients identified as ‘high risk’ by the SLE score only (the ‘missed group’) were compared with those identified by the Framingham score (the ‘conventional group’). RESULTS: 146 patients were included; 22 (15%) and 44 (30%) were determined to be at ‘high risk’ based on the Framingham and SLE scores, respectively. Patients in the ‘missed group’ were less likely to have traditional risk factors and were more likely to be female (81% vs 50%; p=0.03), younger (mean age 54 vs 69 years p<0.01) and have lower systolic blood pressure (132 vs 143 mm Hg; p=0.05). Of those deemed high risk, only a minority were treated to target blood pressure and lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients with SLE could be re-classified as high risk using a formula that incorporates SLE disease-related parameters. These patients have different profiles to those identified using a conventional risk model. Optimal CVD risk assessment and management warrants further attention in SLE. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5704739/ /pubmed/29214035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2017-000212 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 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 and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Co-Morbidities
Boulos, Daniel
Koelmeyer, Rachel L
Morand, Eric F
Hoi, Alberta Y
Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
title Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
title_full Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
title_fullStr Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
title_full_unstemmed Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
title_short Cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
title_sort cardiovascular risk profiles in a lupus cohort: what do different calculators tell us?
topic Co-Morbidities
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2017-000212
work_keys_str_mv AT boulosdaniel cardiovascularriskprofilesinalupuscohortwhatdodifferentcalculatorstellus
AT koelmeyerrachell cardiovascularriskprofilesinalupuscohortwhatdodifferentcalculatorstellus
AT morandericf cardiovascularriskprofilesinalupuscohortwhatdodifferentcalculatorstellus
AT hoialbertay cardiovascularriskprofilesinalupuscohortwhatdodifferentcalculatorstellus