4.5 Article

Cardiovascular Event Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared with Type 2 Diabetes: A 15-year Longitudinal Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 316-324

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180726

关键词

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) risk is increased in rheumatoid arthritis ( RA). However, longterm followup studies investigating this risk are scarce. Methods. The CARRE (CARdiovascular research and RhEumatoid arthritis) study is a prospective cohort study investigating CVD and its risk factors in 353 patients with longstanding RA. CV endpoints were assessed at baseline and 3, 10, and 15 years after the start of the study and are compared to a reference cohort (n = 2540), including a large number of patients with type 2 diabetes (DM). Results. Ninety-five patients with RA developed a CV event over 2973 person-years, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.20 per 100 person-years. Two hundred fifty-seven CV events were reported in the reference cohort during 18,874 person-years, resulting in an incidence rate of 1.36 per 100 person-years. Age-and sex-adjusted HR for CV events were increased for RA (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.57-2.72, p < 0.01) and DM (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.02-2.22, p = 0.04) compared to the nondiabetic participants. HR was still increased in RA (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.32-2.50, p < 0.01) after additional adjustment for CV risk factors. Patients with both RA and DM or insulin resistance had the highest HR for developing CVD (2.21, 95% CI 1.01-4.80, p = 0.046 and 2.67, 95% CI 1.30-5.46, p < 0.01, respectively). Conclusion. The incidence rate of CV events in established RA was more than double that of the general population. Patients with RA have an even higher risk of CVD than patients with DM. This risk remained after adjustment for traditional CV risk factors, suggesting that systemic inflammation is an independent contributor to CV risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据