Psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in Norway: nationwide prevalence and use of biologic agents.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the use of biologic agents in these diseases in Norway. METHODS: From the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR), we identified as PsA, axSpA and RA patients ≥18 years those with ≥2 recorded episodes with diagnostic coding for index disease (L40.5, M07.0-M07.3 for PsA; M45, M46.0, M46.1, M46.8 and M46.9 for axSpA; M05-M06 for RA). We calculated the point prevalence of PsA, axSpA and RA as per the 1st of January 2017 in the Norwegian adult population (age ≥18). Dispensed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) prescriptions were obtained from the Norwegian Prescription Database and biologic DMARDs given in hospitals from the NPR. RESULTS: The point prevalence of PsA, axSpA, RA, and any of these diseases in total was 0.46%, 0.41%, 0.78%, and 1.56%, respectively. Among women, the prevalence of PsA, axSpA, and RA was 0.50%, 0.37%, and 1.10%, and among men 0.43%, 0.45%, and 0.46%, respectively. In 2017, 27.3% of RA patients, 25.7% of PsA patients and 35.1% of axSpA patients used biologic DMARDs. Treatment with biologics was more frequent in younger age groups in all three diseases, and became more infrequent especially after age ≥55 years. CONCLUSION: In Norway, the combined prevalence of PsA, axSpA, and RA was over 1.5%. Reflecting the good overall access to highly effective but costly biologic treatments, more than a fourth of these patients used biologic agents, which corresponds to over 0.4% of Norwegian adult population.

Degree of arterial stiffness is comparable across inflammatory joint disease entities.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory joint disease (IJD) is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Arterial stiffness is both a risk factor and a surrogate marker for CVD. This study aims to compare arterial stiffness across patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis, and, by extension, to explore the relationship between arterial stiffness and the estimated CVD risk by the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) algorithm. METHOD: During the study period, from April 2017 to June 2018, 196 patients with IJD visited the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma Clinic in Oslo, Norway. A CVD risk stratification was performed, including the assessment of traditional risk factors and the measurement of arterial stiffness. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (18.4%) had elevated aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) (≥ 10 m/s). After adjustment for age and heart rate, arterial stiffness was comparable across the IJD entities (p = 0.69). Associated factors, revealed by regression analysis, were age, blood pressure, heart rate, presence of carotid plaques, establis hed CVD, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and statin use. Furthermore, aPWV was positively correlated with estimated CVD risk (r = 0.7, p < 0.001) and patients with a very high predicted CVD risk (SCORE ≥ 10%) had significantly higher aPWV than patients at lower CVD risk (9.2 vs 7.5 m/s, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The degree of arterial stiffness was comparable across the IJD entities and was highly associated with the estimated CVD risk. Our findings support the need for an increased focus on prevention of CVD in all patients with IJD.

Biomarkers of cardiovascular risk across phenotypes of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to explore the associations between ultrasonographic and radiographic joint scores and levels of arterial CVD risk markers in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondly, to compare the levels of arterial CVD risk markers between OA phenotypes and controls. METHOD: The "Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker" Study (MUST) invited residents of Ullensaker municipality with self-reported OA to a medical examination. OA was defined according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and phenotyped based on joint distribution. Joints of the hands, hips and knees were examined by ultrasonography and conventional radiography, and scored for osteosteophytes. Hands were also scored for inflammation by grey scale (GS) synovitis and power Doppler (PD) signal. Control populations were a cohort of inhabitants of Oslo (OCP), and for external validation, a UK community-based register (UKPC).Pulse pressure augmentation index (AIx) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were measured using the Sphygmocor apparatus (Atcor®). Ankel-brachial index (ABI) was estimated in a subset of patients. In separate adjusted regression models we explored the associations between ultrasonography and radiograph joint scores and AIx, PWV and ABI. CVD risk markers were also compared between phenotypes of OA and controls in adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty six persons with OA were included (mean age (range); 63.0 (42.0-75.0)), (females (%); 264 (72)). Of these, 155 (42.3%) had isolated hand OA, 111 (30.3%) had isolated lower limb OA and 100 (27.3%) had generalized OA. 108 persons were included in the OCP and 963 persons in the UKPC; (mean age (range); OCP: 57.2 (40.4-70.4), UKPC: 63.9 (40.0-75.0), females (%); OCP: 47 (43.5), UKPC: 543 (56.4%). Hand osteophytes were associated with AIx while GS and PD scores were not related to CVD risk markers. All OA phenotypes had higher levels of AIx compared to OCP in adjusted analyses. External validation against UKPC confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Hand osteophytes might be related to higher risk of CVD. People with OA had higher augmented central pressure compared to controls.Words 330.

EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms of inflammatory joint disorders: 2015/2016 update.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory joint disorders (IJD) have increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with the general population. In 2009, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce recommended screening, identification of CVD risk factors and CVD risk management largely based on expert opinion. In view of substantial new evidence, an update was conducted with the aim of producing CVD risk management recommendations for patients with IJD that now incorporates an increasing evidence base. A multidisciplinary steering committee (representing 13 European countries) comprised 26 members including patient representatives, rheumatologists, cardiologists, internists, epidemiologists, a health professional and fellows. Systematic literature searches were performed and evidence was categorised according to standard guidelines. The evidence was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Three overarching principles were defined. First, there is a higher risk for CVD in patients with RA, and this may also apply to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Second, the rheumatologist is responsible for CVD risk management in patients with IJD. Third, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids should be in accordance with treatment-specific recommendations from EULAR and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society. Ten recommendations were defined, of which one is new and six were changed compared with the 2009 recommendations. Each designated an appropriate evidence support level. The present update extends on the evidence that CVD risk in the whole spectrum of IJD is increased. This underscores the need for CVD risk management in these patients. These recommendations are defined to provide assistance in CVD risk management in IJD, based on expert opinion and scientific evidence.

Exploring cardiovascular disease risk evaluation in patients with inflammatory joint diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators developed for the general population have been shown to inaccurately predict CVD events in patients with inflammatory joint disease (IJD). European guidelines for CVD prevention recognize the presence of carotid plaques (CP) as a very high CVD risk factor, equivalent of coronary artery disease. Patients with IJD have a high prevalence of CP. We evaluated if CP resulted in reclassification of patients with IJD into a more appropriate CVD risk class and recommended lipid lowering treatment. METHODS: CVD risk evaluation was performed in patients with IJD using SCORE and ACC/AHA risk calculators to predict CVD events. RESULTS: Of the 335 IJD patients evaluated (including rheumatoid arthritis n=201, ankylosing spondylitis n=85 and psoriatic arthritis n=49), 183 and 159 IJD patients had a calculated CVD risk by SCORE and ACC/AHA <5%, indicating no need of lipid lowering treatment (LLT). However, of patients with low to moderate risk calculated by SCORE and ACC/AHA, 67 (36.6%) and 48 (30.2%) had CP and should according to guidelines receive intensive LLT. For patients with high risk, in the LLT considered group, 54.9% and 58.1% were reclassified to correct treatment when adding information on the presence of CP. Our results reveal a considerable reclassification into correct CVD risk category when adding CP in female patients. CONCLUSION: The high frequency of asymptomatic atherosclerosis in patients with IJD has a notable impact on CVD risk stratification. Identification of CP will reclassify patients into recommended CVD preventive treatment group, which may be clinically important.

Prediction of cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis: performance of original and adapted SCORE algorithms.

OBJECTIVES: Predictive performance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators appears suboptimal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A disease-specific CVD risk algorithm may improve CVD risk prediction in RA. The objectives of this study are to adapt the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) algorithm with determinants of CVD risk in RA and to assess the accuracy of CVD risk prediction calculated with the adapted SCORE algorithm. METHODS: Data from the Nijmegen early RA inception cohort were used. The primary outcome was first CVD events. The SCORE algorithm was recalibrated by reweighing included traditional CVD risk factors and adapted by adding other potential predictors of CVD. Predictive performance of the recalibrated and adapted SCORE algorithms was assessed and the adapted SCORE was externally validated. RESULTS: Of the 1016 included patients with RA, 103 patients experienced a CVD event. Discriminatory ability was comparable across the original, recalibrated and adapted SCORE algorithms. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test results indicated that all three algorithms provided poor model fit (p<0.05) for the Nijmegen and external validation cohort. The adapted SCORE algorithm mainly improves CVD risk estimation in non-event cases and does not show a clear advantage in reclassifying patients with RA who develop CVD (event cases) into more appropriate risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates for the first time that adaptations of the SCORE algorithm do not provide sufficient improvement in risk prediction of future CVD in RA to serve as an appropriate alternative to the original SCORE. Risk assessment using the original SCORE algorithm may underestimate CVD risk in patients with RA.

Rosuvastatin-Induced Carotid Plaque Regression in Patients With Inflammatory Joint Diseases: The Rosuvastatin in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis and Other Inflammatory Joint Diseases Study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and carotid artery plaques have an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes. Statin treatment with the goal of achieving a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of ≤1.8 mmoles/liter (≤70 mg/dl) is recommended for individuals in the general population who have carotid plaques. The aim of the ROsuvastatin in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis and other inflammatory joint diseases (RORA-AS) study was to evaluate the effect of 18 months of intensive lipid-lowering treatment with rosuvastatin with regard to change in carotid plaque height. METHODS: Eighty-six patients (60.5% of whom were female) with carotid plaques and inflammatory joint disease (55 with RA, 21 with AS, and 10 with psoriatic arthritis) were treated with rosuvastatin to obtain the LDL cholesterol goal. Carotid plaque height was evaluated by B-mode ultrasonography. RESULTS: The mean ± SD age of the patients was 60.8 ± 8.5 years, and the median compliance with rosuvastatin treatment was 97.9% (interquartile range [IQR] 96.0-99.4). At baseline, the median number and height of the carotid plaques were 1.0 (range 1-8) and 1.80 mm (IQR 1.60-2.10), respectively. The mean ± SD change in carotid plaque height after 18 months of treatment with rosuvastatin was -0.19 ± 0.35 mm (P < 0.0001). The mean ± SD baseline LDL cholesterol level was 4.0 ± 0.9 mmoles/liter (154.7 ± 34.8 mg/dl), and the mean reduction in the LDL cholesterol level was -2.3 mmoles/liter (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -2.48, -2.15) (-88.9 mg/dl [95% CI -95.9, -83.1]). The mean ± SD LDL cholesterol level during the 18 months of rosuvastatin treatment was 1.7 ± 0.4 mmoles/liter (area under the curve). After adjustment for age/sex/blood pressure, no linear relationship between a reduction in carotid plaque height and the level of LDL cholesterol exposure during the study period was observed. Attainment of the LDL cholesterol goal of ≤1.8 mmoles/liter (≤70 mg/dl) or the amount of change in the LDL cholesterol level during the study period did not influence the degree of carotid plaque height reduction. CONCLUSION: Intensive lipid-lowering treatment with rosuvastatin induced atherosclerotic regression and reduced the LDL cholesterol level significantly in patients with inflammatory joint disease.

Systemic inflammation in patients with inflammatory joint diseases does not influence statin dose needed to obtain LDL cholesterol goal in cardiovascular prevention.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lipid paradox in rheumatoid arthritis describing that despite low lipids related to systemic inflammation, there is an increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Our aim was to evaluate if baseline lipid levels or baseline systemic inflammation were associated with the statin dose sufficient to achieve lipid targets in patients with inflammatory joint diseases. METHODS: In this longitudinal, short-term follow-up observational report, we evaluated 197 patients who did and 36 patients who did not reach the recommended low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) target. The patients were, after CV risk evaluation, classified to either primary or secondary CV prevention with lipid lowering treatment (LLT). LLT was initiated with statins and adjusted until at least two lipid targets were achieved. Intensive LLT was defined as rosuvastatin ≥20 mg, atorvastatin and simvastatin at the highest dose (80 mg), and conventional LLT were defined as all lower doses. RESULTS: In an independent sample t test, systemic inflammation or lipid levels at baseline were not associated with the statin dose (intensive or conventional) needed to achieve recommended LDL-c target (C reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate: p=0.10 and p=0.11, and LDL-c/total cholesterol: p=0.17 and p=0.34, respectively). The baseline inflammatory status and lipid levels in patients who did and did not obtain LDL-c goal were comparable (C reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate: p=0.32 and p=0.64, and LDL-c/total cholesterol: p=0.20 and p=0.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammation or lipid levels did not influence the intensity of statin treatment needed to obtain guideline recommended lipid targets in CV prevention. Whether the background inflammation in patients with inflammatory joint diseases over time influences the CV risk reduction related to statins is yet unknown.