You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 81, Issue 6
  • EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome

Responses

Article menu
Recommendation
EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome
Free
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 8 June 2022
    What should be the threshold to initiate pharmacological treatment of hyperlipidaemia?
    • ANAND MALAVIYA, Consultant Rheumatologist ISIC Superspeciality Hospital, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, India - 110070

    To,
    The Editor, A R D
    Sir,
    This has reference to the EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome [1]. These recommendations will help most of the practicing rheumatologists in getting actively involved the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in RMDs. However, I seek one clarification the answer of which, I did not find in this document. What exact measure/instrument should I be using to guide me for pharmacological intervention for appropriate lipid-control? Should I be only using any one of the ‘CVD 10-y risk prediction instruments’ (modified Framingham Risk score, ‘SCORE’, ‘QRISK3’) and using a cut-off of 10-year-risk of > 5% as a guide to initiate pharmacological intervention for lipid-control (besides life-style change recommendations)? Or should I use the widely endorsed recommendations/guidelines from different cardiology/cholesterol societies around the world? For example, presently most such recommendations suggest the formulae ‘total cholesterol minus_HDL-cholesterol’ or ‘total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio’ providing cutoff values (>120 or 130mg/dL/>3.5 to 5, respectively) above which pharmacological intervention for lipid-control must be initiated. Opinion of the experts will be highly appreciated.
    Yours Truly
    Anand N. Malaviya, Department of Rheumatology.
    ISIC Superspeciali...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 7 February 2022
    Standard cardiovascular risk scales for people with gout?
    • Mariano Andres, Rheumatologist and Adjunct Professor Alicante General University Hospital-ISABIAL, Miguel Hernandez University, Alicante, Spain.

    Dear editor,
    I read with interest the recently published new EULAR recommendations for managing the cardiovascular risk in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [1]. They were long-awaited, and opportunely the targeted diseases are now broader, as previous ones focused primarily on chronic inflammatory arthritis [2].

    With rising numbers worldwide, gout is a major cardiovascular risk factor directly linked to all forms of atherosclerotic diseases. By having gout, there is a 40% increased chance of dying from the coronary disease [3]. So, focused management to reduce these serious complications is necessary, and establishing an individual patient's risk is essential. Surprisingly, the experts rely on risk prediction using standard risk assessment tools, claiming the absence of validation studies. I should partially disagree at this point. Certainly, no longitudinal studies have evaluated the predicted rates of cardiovascular events in gout to date. However, our group studied the discriminative value of SCORE and Framingham tools in detecting patients with carotid plaques, a high-risk indicator [4]. A moderate discriminative capacity was unveiled, with areas under the curve of 0.711 for SCORE and 0.683 for Framingham [5]. Specificity was quite good, but the tools lacked enough sensitivity. Moreover, Gamala and colleagues incorporated gout into the modified Dutch SCORE as an inflammatory risk factor [6]. It led to a 28.3% upgrade to the high-risk stag...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.