Search

Objective This study examined the prevalence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among Saudi patients with SLE and the general population and considered factors associated with such outcomes were taken into consideration.Methods This is a cohort study evaluating the period prevalence of MACE from 2020 to 2023. The study used two datasets, namely the Saudi national prospective cohort for SLE patients and the Prospective Urban-Rural Epidemiology Study Saudi subcohort (PURE-Saudi) for the general population. Participants in both studies were monitored using a standardised protocol. MACE was defined as myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or angina. The analysis was adjusted for demographics, traditional cardiovascular risk factors and SLE diagnosis through logistic regression models.Results The PURE and national SLE cohorts comprised 488 and 746 patients, respectively. Patients with SLE from the SLE cohort were younger (40.7±12.5 vs 49.5±8.6 years) and predominantly female (90.6% vs 41.6%). The prevalence of traditional risk factors was greater in the PURE cohort compared with the SLE cohort. These factors included dyslipidaemia (28.9% vs 49.4%), obesity (63% vs 85%) and diabetes (7.8% vs 27.2%), but not hypertension (19.3% vs 18.8%). MACE (defined as MI or stroke or venous thromboembolism or heart failure) occurred more frequently in patients with SLE (4.3% vs 1.6%, p=0.004). Older age and lupus diagnosis were independently associated with MACE after adjusting for conventional risk factors. The odds of MACE were significantly related to age and lupus diagnosis (p=0.00 and p=0.00, respectively), but not cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors (p=0.83).Conclusion Patients with SLE have a significantly higher risk of developing MACE than the general population. This risk is not well explained by traditional risk factors, which may explain the failure of CVD risk scores to stratify patients with SLE adequately. Further studies are needed to understand CVD risk’s pathogenesis in SLE and mitigate it.

IntroductionThe effectiveness of canakinumab may change according to the different times it is used after Still’s disease onset. This study aimed to investigate whether canakinumab (CAN) shows differences in short- and long-term therapeutic outcomes, according to its use as different lines of biologic treatment.MethodsPatients included in this study were retrospectively enrolled from the AutoInflammatory Disease Alliance (AIDA) International Registry dedicated to Still’s disease. Seventy-seven (51 females and 26 males) patients with Still’s disease were included in the present study. In total, 39 (50.6%) patients underwent CAN as a first-line biologic agent, and the remaining 38 (49.4%) patients were treated with CAN as a second-line biologic agent or subsequent biologic agent.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found between patients treated with CAN as a first-line biologic agent and those previously treated with other biologic agents in terms of the frequency of complete response (p =0.62), partial response (p =0.61), treatment failure (p >0.99), and frequency of patients discontinuing CAN due to lack or loss of efficacy (p =0.2). Of all the patients, 18 (23.4%) patients experienced disease relapse during canakinumab treatment, 9 patients were treated with canakinumab as a first-line biologic agent, and nine patients were treated with a second-line or subsequent biologic agent. No differences were found in the frequency of glucocorticoid use (p =0.34), daily glucocorticoid dosage (p =0.47), or concomitant methotrexate dosage (p =0.43) at the last assessment during CAN treatment.ConclusionCanakinumab has proved to be effective in patients with Still’s disease, regardless of its line of biologic treatment.