Search

Objective: To scope the current published evidence on cardiovascular risk factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) focusing on the role of autoantibodies and the effect of antirheumatic agents. Methods: Two reviews were conducted in parallel: A targeted literature review (TLR) describing the risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in RA patients; and a systematic literature review (SLR) identifying and characterizing the association between autoantibody status and CVD risk in RA. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was carried out. Results: A total of 69 publications (49 in the TLR and 20 in the SLR) were included in the qualitative evidence synthesis. The most prevalent topic related to CVD risks in RA was inflammation as a shared mechanism behind both RA morbidity and atherosclerotic processes. Published evidence indicated that most of RA patients already had significant CV pathologies at the time of diagnosis, suggesting subclinical CVD may be developing before patients become symptomatic. Four types of autoantibodies (rheumatoid factor, anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies, anti-phospholipid autoantibodies, anti-lipoprotein autoantibodies) showed increased risk of specific cardiovascular events, such as higher risk of cardiovascular death in rheumatoid factor positive patients and higher risk of thrombosis in anti-phospholipid autoantibody positive patients. Conclusion: Autoantibodies appear to increase CVD risk; however, the magnitude of the increase and the types of CVD outcomes affected are still unclear. Prospective studies with larger populations are required to further understand and quantify the association, including the causal pathway, between specific risk factors and CVD outcomes in RA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Systematic review of b/tsDMARDs in adults with RA • Outcomes data were extracted from 67 real-world comparative effectiveness studies • There were no evident differences of clinical effectiveness between b/tsDMARDs • Personalized treatment focusing on the needs of each patient is key To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review. We searched Medline for journal articles (2001–2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness. This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]