1. Metabolic syndrome in patients with ankylosing spondylitis receiving anti-TNFα therapy: association with predictors of cardiovascular risk
- Author
-
Carlos Ewerton Maia Rodrigues, Diego Germano Maia, Kristopherson Lustosa Augusto, and Mailze Campos Bezerra
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Physical examination ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Severity of Illness Index ,Body Mass Index ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Rheumatology ,Risk Factors ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,Spondylitis, Ankylosing ,National Cholesterol Education Program ,Inflammation ,Metabolic Syndrome ,030203 arthritis & rheumatology ,Ankylosing spondylitis ,Framingham Risk Score ,Anthropometry ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha ,business.industry ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,Endocrinology ,Cardiovascular Diseases ,Female ,Metabolic syndrome ,Lipid profile ,business ,Body mass index ,Brazil - Abstract
The purposes of this study were to determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) receiving anti-TNFα therapy and evaluate the association of the two conditions with clinical and laboratory findings and predictors of cardiovascular risk. In this cross-sectional study, 63 patients diagnosed with AS according to the modified New York criteria and treated with TNFα blockers and 33 healthy controls were submitted to clinical examination and anthropometric measurements. Glucose levels, lipid profile, and inflammatory markers were registered. The Framingham score (FS), atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) were calculated. MetS was diagnosed according to the revised National Cholesterol Education Program - Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. The prevalence of MetS was higher among AS patients than controls (27 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.04). AS patients also had greater body mass index (27.6 kg/m2 ± 4.5 vs. 24.5 kg/m2 ± 2.7; p = 0.001) and WHtR (0.59 ± 0.08 vs. 0.49 ± 0.05; p
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF