You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Lupus
Original research
Systemic lupus erythematosus; stroke and myocardial infarction risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Jinoos Yazdany1,
  2. Nick Pooley2,
  3. Julia Langham3,
  4. Lindsay Nicholson2,
  5. Sue Langham4,
  6. Nina Embleton5,
  7. Xia Wang6,
  8. Barnabas Desta7,
  9. Volkan Barut8 and
  10. Edward Hammond9
  1. 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2Systematic Review Group, Maverex Limited, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Epidemiology Group, Maverex Limited, Manchester, UK
  4. 4Health Economics Group, Maverex Limited, Manchester, UK
  5. 5Statistical Group, Maverex Limited, Manchester, UK
  6. 6Data Science & AI, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
  7. 7Global Pricing and Market Access, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
  8. 8Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
  9. 9BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to Barnabas Desta;barnabas.desta{at}astrazeneca.com

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to May 2020 to identify observational studies (cohort and cross-sectional) that evaluated risk of stroke and MI in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls. Studies were included if they reported effect-size estimates that could be used for calculating pooled-effect estimates. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for stroke and MI. Heterogeneity quantified by the I2 test and sensitivity analyses assessed bias.

Results In total, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis: 14, 5 and 7 studies on stroke, MI and both stroke and MI, respectively. The pooled RR for ischaemic stroke was 2.18 (95% CI 1.78 to 2.67; I2 75%), intracerebral haemorrhage 1.84 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.90; I2 67%), subarachnoid haemorrhage 1.95 (95% CI 0.69 to 5.52; I2 94%), composite stroke 2.13 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.61; I2 88%) and MI 2.99 (95% CI 2.34 to 3.82; I2 85%). There was no evidence for publication bias, and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

Conclusions Overall, patients with SLE were identified to have a twofold to threefold higher risk of stroke and MI. Future research on the interaction between known SLE-specific modifiable risk factors and risk of stroke and MI to support development of prevention and treatment strategies are needed.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42018098690.

  • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Cardiovascular Disease
  • Epidemiology
  • Outcomes research
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001247

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    INTRODUCTION

    Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder characterised by alternating periods of flares and remission, and irreversible organ damage associated with disease activity.1 The skin, joints, heart, kidneys, central nervous system and haematologic system are some of the most commonly affected organs.2 3 Organ damage has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality.4 Although recent data suggest that mortality decreased in patients with SLE over the last 30 years, mortality due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) has remained high,5–8 an estimated twofold to threefold increased risk of CVD-associated mortality compared with the general population.9–11

    Stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) are major CVD events that are potentially life-threatening.12 Understanding the magnitude of stroke and MI risk in patients with SLE and characterising patients at highest risk would support the development of strategies for preventing and treating or modifying risk factors. Patients with SLE have an increased risk of stroke10 13 and MI.10 Evidence includes a meta-analysis of cohort studies published prior to 2015 that compared patients with SLE with the general population.13 There are no recent meta-analyses that evaluate both stroke and MI across multiple observational study types to estimate pooled risk.

    We aimed to synthesise evidence from published observational studies reporting risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls.14 We report our findings on the risk of stroke and MI in patients with SLE. We also evaluate the role of age and sex in stroke and MI risk.

    METHODS

    Search strategy

    This study was conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews.15 16 The study protocol was prepared and published via the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (#CRD42018098690).14 Searches for full-text reports containing original data were run in Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE until March 2018; an additional update search was run until May 2020. The detailed search strategy is available in online supplemental table S1. We also searched the reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field.

    Eligibility criteria

    We included full publications of observational studies (cohort and cross-sectional studies) published in English reporting the risk of CVD outcomes in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls. Patients with SLE were identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria or clinician-confirmed diagnosis.17 18 The outcomes reported in this manuscript include fatal and non-fatal stroke (including subtypes) and MI events. Studies were included if they reported one of the following measures of relative risk: HR, rate ratio, risk ratio (RR), OR, incidence rate ratio, proportionate morbidity ratio, standardised mortality rate or standardised incidence rate with 95% CIs. Abstracts of unpublished studies were excluded as data were not reported to support formal comparison.

    Screening and abstraction process

    Two-stage screening (title/abstract and full-text screening), data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers (NP and LN); disagreement was resolved by consensus involving a third reviewer (JL). Studies that met the eligibility criteria and reported original data were included in the review. Data on study characteristics and the effect measure for outcomes of interest (fatal and non-fatal events) were extracted.

    Risk of bias and quality assessment

    The risk of bias of included studies was estimated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale19 and an SLE-specific 12-point scale developed for use in previous SLE systematic reviews.8 11 13 20–23 The SLE-specific 12-point scale scores quality in five domains: (1) source of study sample (population-based and clinic-based), (2) cohort type (inception and non-inception), (3) SLE definition (ACR classification criteria for SLE, ICD codes and medical record review), (4) length of SLE exposure (≥10 or <10 years, ≥5 or <5 years or not defined) and (5) ascertainment of outcome (medical record review, ICD code only and exclusion of prevalent outcomes at baseline) (online supplemental table S2). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assesses study quality in three domains: (1) selection of study groups, (2) comparability of cohorts by design or analysis and (3) ascertainment of outcomes of interest (online supplemental table S3). Studies were classified as having low, moderate or high risk of bias based on results from domains in both scales.

    Statistical analysis

    We performed meta-analyses for stroke and MI where two or more studies with a low risk of bias reported usable data. One study was selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis based on study quality, population size and length of study period if there were two studies that reported findings from overlapping populations.

    ORs, HRs, rate ratios, standardised incidence ratios and standardised mortality ratios were considered equal estimates assuming rare occurrence24 and referred to as ‘risk ratios’ throughout this publication. The most adjusted RR was used. A DerSimonian and Laird25 random-effects model was fit to calculate the pooled RR and 95% CIs for all outcomes.

    Heterogeneity was measured using the Cochran’s Q statistic with statistical significance set at p<0.10 and quantified by the I2 test. Publication bias was assessed with both funnel plots and the Egger’s test.26

    Robustness of the results was assessed by the leave1out function,27 which examined the effect of removing individual studies on pooled estimates. Several sensitivity analyses were performed, including least-adjusted analysis, studies published during or after 2014, studies published before 2014, studies with low risk of bias, studies reporting non-fatal events, studies reporting non-fatal/fatal events, studies previously excluded because the populations overlapped with another study; and excluding cross-sectional studies. All analyses were conducted in R version 3.5.1 using the packages metafor and forestplot.

    We describe reported RRs for the patient subgroups of age and sex, for which data were available from specific studies. Due to the paucity of data, no meta-analyses were conducted for subgroups.

    Patient and public involvement

    No patients or the public were involved in setting the research question or outcome measures, nor in the design and implementation of the study. However, the dissemination plan targets a wide audience including members of the public, patients, health professionals and experts in the speciality through various channels including peer-reviewed publications and conference posters and presentations.

    RESULTS

    Literature search

    The original search of the two electronic databases identified 3252 records; 2569 articles remained after duplicates were removed. Of these, 2400 were excluded after screening titles and abstracts. After full-text review, 23 publications reporting on stroke and MI were retained for inclusion in this report (figure 1). The updated search identified 612 records; 420 articles remained after duplicates were removed. Of these, 372 were excluded after screening titles and abstracts. After full-text review, three additional publications reporting on stroke and MI were retained, bringing the total for inclusion to 26 publications. A list of excluded studies, with reasons, is outlined in online supplemental table S4.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Flow diagram of the systematic literature review process to evaluate the risk of stroke and MI in patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls. MI, myocardial infarction; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

    Study characteristics

    Characteristics of the 26 included studies5–7,28–50 are summarised in table 1. There were 23 cohort studies and three cross-sectional studies.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review to assess risk of stroke and MI in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls

    Twenty-four studies reported the number of patients with SLE assessed (N=249 687) and 15 studies reported the number of general population/healthy controls assessed (N=50 310 715). Studies were conducted in Asia (n=7), Europe (n=10), North America (n=8) or multiple countries (including centres in Europe, North America and Asia; n=1). Study durations ranged from 1 to 43 years. The percentage of female patients ranged from 78% to 100%. Average age, reported in 15 studies, ranged from 31 to 56 years. Bias was assessed to be low in 19 studies6 28–32,34–37,39–41,43–46 and as moderate in two studies.5 7 Five studies were assessed as having high risk of bias, three of which were cross-sectional studies33 38 47 and two were cohort studies.42 49 The risk of bias assessment for included studies is summarised in online supplemental table S5.

    Stroke

    Meta-analyses were performed for the following stroke outcomes: composite stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage and ischaemic stroke. No meta-analysis was performed for haemorrhagic stroke (n=1) and unspecified stroke (n=2), only one of the two studies had low risk of bias.

    Composite stroke

    Composite stroke was reported in 16 studies: six studies evaluated fatal or non-fatal events,28 30 33 35 36 42 five evaluated non-fatal events38 40 44 45 47 and five evaluated fatal events.5–7 Five studies were not included in the main meta-analysis: four had overlapping populations with other studies5 30 33 40 and one only reported data by age group.47 Nine of the 11 studies included had low risk of bias (online supplemental table S5).

    Composite stroke was identified by ICD-8, ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes in 12 of 16 studies. In the remaining three studies, stroke was identified by unreported read codes, physician diagnosis, National Survey of Stroke criteria or Biobank database based on ICD-10 codes (online supplemental table S6). The ICD codes used to create the composite stroke endpoint were specific to each study and are listed in online supplemental table S6.

    SLE was associated with an increased risk of composite stroke, with a pooled RR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.61; I2 for heterogeneity 88.3%; df=10; p≤0.001) (figure 2A).

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Forest plots of pooled risk ratios for stroke and MI outcomes in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls: (A) composite stroke, (B) subarachnoid haemorrhage, (C) intracerebral haemorrhage, (D) ischaemic stroke, (E) MI. MI, myocardial infarction; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

    Subarachnoid haemorrhage

    Subarachnoid haemorrhage was reported in six studies: three studies evaluated fatal/non-fatal events,28 31 43 two studies evaluated non-fatal events38 45 and one study evaluated fatal events.5 Two studies were not included in the meta-analysis because they did not provide usable 95% CIs.5 31 Three of the four studies included had low risk of bias (online supplemental table S5).

    Subarachnoid haemorrhage was identified by ICD-8, ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes in all studies. The ICD codes used were the same in all studies that reported them (online supplemental table S6).

    Risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage did not significantly increase in patients with SLE, with a pooled RR of 1.95 (95% CI 0.69 to 5.52; I2 for heterogeneity 94.4%; df=3; p<0.001) (figure 2B).

    Intracerebral haemorrhage

    Intracerebral haemorrhage was reported in five studies: two studies evaluated fatal/non-fatal events28 42 and three studies evaluated non-fatal events.38 45 46 One study was not included in the meta-analysis because the population overlapped with another study.46 Of the four studies included, two had low risk of bias (online supplemental table S5).

    Intracerebral haemorrhage was identified by ICD-8, ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes in four of five studies. The codes used were similar in all studies that reported them and are listed in online supplemental table S6. In one study, physician diagnosis confirmed case identification.

    SLE was associated with an increased risk of intracerebral haemorrhage, with a pooled RR of 1.84 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.90; I2 for heterogeneity 67.4%; df=3; p<0.0027) (figure 2C).

    Ischaemic stroke

    Ischaemic stroke was reported in nine studies: three studies evaluated fatal/non-fatal events,28 29 42 five studies evaluated non-fatal events32 38 40 45 46 and one study evaluated fatal events.5 Four studies were not included in the meta-analysis, two of which had overlapping study populations,45 46 one did not report a usable 95% CI5 and one reported data only for a subpopulation.40 Of the five studies included, three had low risk of bias (online supplemental table S5).

    Ischaemic stroke was identified by ICD-8, ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes in seven of nine studies. The codes used were similar in all studies that reported them and are listed in online supplemental table S6. In the remaining studies, physician diagnosis or national insurance claims data confirmed case identification.

    SLE was associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke, with a pooled RR of 2.18 (95% CI 1.78 to 2.67; I2 for heterogeneity 75.4%; df=4; p≤0.001) (figure 2D).

    Myocardial infarction

    MI was reported in 12 studies: six studies evaluated fatal/non-fatal events29 30 34–36 39 and six studies evaluated non-fatal events.37 41 47–50 Four studies were not included in the meta-analysis: two because they reported data only for a subpopulation,41 47 one because it only reported data on lupus nephritis (LN)34 and one owing to population overlap with another study.30 Of the eight studies included, all but one had low risk of bias49 (online supplemental table S5).

    MI was identified by ICD-8, ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes in 8 of 12 studies. The codes used were similar in all studies that reported them and are listed in online supplemental table S6. In the remaining studies, a combination of WHO criteria, hospital data, Biobank database based on ICD-10 codes or autopsy evidence confirmed identification. One study did not report how MI was identified.

    SLE was associated with an increased risk of MI, with a pooled RR of 2.99 (95% CI 2.34 to 3.82; I2 for heterogeneity 85.7%; df=7; p≤0.001) (figure 2E).

    Sensitivity analyses and heterogeneity

    The leave1out method and various sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results (table 2, online supplemental table S7).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Sensitivity analyses for risk of stroke and MI in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls: risk ratios (95% confidence intervals)

    In terms of the leave1out function, only one analysis showed a statistically significant effect of removing an individual study. Removal of a cross-sectional study38 evaluating subarachnoid haemorrhage increased the relative risk identified in the base case from 1.95 to 3.06 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.87 to 5.02).

    The base-case analyses identified composite stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, ischaemic stroke and MI as being statistically significantly increased in persons with SLE compared with the general population. Results of all sensitivity analyses for composite stroke remained significant. For subarachnoid haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage and ischaemic stroke, a number of sensitivity analyses resulted in relative risks that were, in general, higher than the base case but statistically non-significant. We observed this when sensitivity analyses were restricted to studies reporting only on non-fatal/fatal events, only low risk of bias studies, only studies published during or after 2014 and excluding cross-sectional studies. For MI, three of the sensitivity analyses resulted in a lower relative risk that was not statistically significant (including only studies reporting on non-fatal/fatal events, only studies published before 2014 and only studies reporting on non-fatal events).

    Visual examination of the funnel plots showed evidence of publication bias, which was supported by the Egger’s test for ischaemic stroke (p=0.001) but not for composite stroke (p=0.885), subarachnoid haemorrhage (p=0.686), intracerebral haemorrhage (p=0.265) and MI (p=0.500).

    Subgroup evaluation of age and sex

    Eight studies reported the relative risk of stroke stratified by age.28 29 36 42 44–47 Data suggest that risk of stroke increases with age in SLE and non-SLE populations. Patients with SLE have a higher relative risk of stroke, particularly in younger age groups, compared with age-matched population controls. In patients with SLE aged <30 years, RRs ranged from 14.5 to 53.9, and in patients aged >70 years, RRs ranged from 0.53 to 1.76, depending on type of stroke and study design (online supplemental figure S1).

    Four studies reported the relative risk of MI stratified by age; however, differences in age group boundaries and small numbers of patients with SLE within groups meant that the data could not be summarised.29 30 41 47 It was not possible to summarise the relative risk of stroke and MI stratified by sex due to the small numbers of male patients included in the studies.

    DISCUSSION

    In this meta-analysis of 26 real-world observational studies, patients with SLE had a twofold increase in risk of stroke and threefold increase in risk of MI compared with the general population or healthy controls. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to assess the risk of both stroke and MI across multiple observational study types in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls.

    Rheumatologists are increasingly recognising the risk of CVD as a comorbid disease in patients with SLE. Recent 2019 guidelines from the EULAR recommend assessment of CVD risk and initiation of preventive strategies for patients with SLE when necessary.51 Because the development of CVD could result in decreased health-related quality of life52 and early mortality,9 53 health education and risk factor modification are important for this patient population.

    Our findings are consistent with a published meta-analysis for stroke in patients with SLE that included studies up to June 2015.13 The increased risk of composite stroke (RR 2.13), intracerebral haemorrhage (RR 1.84) and ischaemic stroke (RR 2.18) are consistent with findings reported by Holmqvist et al.13 However, the higher number of studies included in our meta-analysis meant increased precision, evidenced by smaller CIs. The increased risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage (RR 1.95) in our analysis is lower than that reported by Holmqvist et al13 (RR 3.85) because our analysis includes a cross-sectional study published in 2005 that reports a low RR (0.53).38 When we excluded this study in the sensitivity analysis, the RR increased to 3.50 (95% CI 2.24 to 5.48), similar to that reported by Holmqvist et al.13

    Our analyses confirm that the relative risk of stroke is higher in younger patients with SLE compared with age-matched controls and corroborate findings from a previous systematic review.13 Although the underlying pathogenesis of increased stroke risk in patients with SLE is the subject of ongoing research, accelerated atherosclerosis likely plays a role.54–56 Accelerated atherosclerosis has also been shown to be associated with LN, which often develops at a young age and is also associated with increased CVD risk.57 58 A previous study found that patients with SLE and a history of LN had twice the rate of carotid plaque as age-matched patients with SLE without LN. Patients with SLE and no LN did not differ from age-matched non-SLE controls regarding carotid plaques.58 Accelerated atherosclerosis is often considered to be the primary cause of increased CVD risk in patients with SLE.59

    Our study is strengthened by a rigorous methodological approach based on international guidelines for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The study design included a comprehensive search of multiple databases, reducing the likelihood of omitting evidence reported in key studies. The study selection criteria ensured that studies with overlapping populations were evaluated only once, ensuring greater confidence in reported relative risk estimates. Our study has some limitations. We identified heterogeneity across the evaluated studies that may be a result of variations in population characteristics, control group selection and risk measure reported. An additional source of heterogeneity may result from the extent to which the SLE and comparison populations were matched for CVD risk factors. Some studies matched the population for a wide range of risk factors or adjusted for them in the analysis, while others only matched or adjusted for a limited number of risk factors. However, multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the increased risk of stroke and MI in patients with SLE. Because of limited data, meta-analyses could not be performed on patient subgroups.

    In addition to age, other known MI and stroke risk factors and SLE-related factors are likely to be important in explaining the observed elevated risk. Of SLE-related factors, disease duration and damage, antiphospholipid antibodies, renal and neuropsychiatric disease and steroids have been linked to increased risk of CVD events.59 60 In this work, although subgroup analyses including these risk factors were not possible owing to limited data, our meta-analysis included two studies that suggest an association between CVD risk and treatment type.33 40 In one study, the risk of ischaemic stroke was stratified by steroid use, and a statistically significant increase in relative risk was identified only in patients with concomitant steroid use.40 A more recent study stratified the relative risk of stroke and venous thromboembolism into four treatment subgroups: no therapy, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids.33 The relative risk of composite stroke was shown to be highest in those treated with NSAIDs or corticosteroids followed by those treated with DMARDs. However, these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, our meta-analysis included one study that investigated the effects of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on the relative risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in patients with SLE and identified a higher relative risk of IHD in patients with ESRD.34

    A future synthesis of the available evidence for specified subgroups among patients with SLE would be useful in highlighting potential modifiable risk factors for CVD.

    CONCLUSION

    The risk of stroke and MI events among adult patients with SLE is twofold to threefold higher compared with the general population or healthy controls. Known MI and stroke risk factors and SLE-related factors are likely to be associated with the observed elevated risk. Understanding the various mechanisms underlying increased CVD risk in patients with SLE, including how antiphospholipid antibodies or antiphospholipid syndrome may modify this risk, will support prevention and treatment strategies and advance informed patient and physician decisions.

    Key messages

    What is already known about this subject?

    • Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder associated with increased comorbidities.

    • Epidemiological studies have suggested an increased risk of cardiovascular events, including stroke and myocardial infarction (MI), in patients with SLE.

    What does this study add?

    • The pooled relative risk of stroke (intracerebral haemorrhage, ischaemic stroke and subarachnoid haemorrhage) and MI from epidemiological studies was found to be twofold to threefold higher among patients with SLE compared with the general population or healthy controls.

    • This magnitude of risk was 1.84-fold higher for intracerebral haemorrhage, 1.95-fold for subarachnoid haemorrhage, 2.13-fold for composite stroke, 2.18-fold for ischaemic stroke and 2.99-fold for MI.

    How might this impact clinical practice?

    • This study confirms the need for treatment strategies that consider prevention and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in addition to SLE management.

    Acknowledgments

    Writing and editing assistance was provided by Sarah Thornburg of JK Associates Inc, a Fishawack Health Company. This support was funded by AstraZeneca.

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      1. Lopez R,
      2. Davidson JE,
      3. Beeby MD
      , et al. Lupus disease activity and the risk of subsequent organ damage and mortality in a large lupus cohort. Rheumatology 2012;51:491–8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker368
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Cervera R,
      2. Khamashta MA,
      3. Font J
      , et al. Morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus during a 10-year period. Medicine 2003;82:299–308. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000091181.93122.55
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Gladman DD
      . Prognosis and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1996;8:430–7. doi: 10.1097/00002281-199609000-00007
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Gladman D,
      2. Ginzler E,
      3. Goldsmith C
      , et al. The development and initial validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:363–9. doi: 10.1002/art.1780390303
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Bernatsky S,
      2. Clarke A,
      3. Gladman DD
      , et al. Mortality related to cerebrovascular disease in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2006;15:835–9. doi: 10.1177/0961203306073133
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Bernatsky S,
      2. Boivin JF,
      3. Joseph L
      , et al. Mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2550–7. doi: 10.1002/art.21955
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Björnådal L,
      2. Yin L,
      3. Granath F
      , et al. Cardiovascular disease a hazard despite improved prognosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: results from a Swedish population based study 1964–95. J Rheumatol 2004;31:713–9. doi: 0315162X-31-713
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Urowitz MB,
      2. Gladman DD,
      3. Tom BDM
      , et al. Changing patterns in mortality and disease outcomes for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2008;35:2152. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.080214
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Lee YH,
      2. Choi SJ,
      3. Ji JD
      , et al. Overall and cause-specific mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus: an updated meta-analysis. Lupus 2016;25:727–34. doi: 10.1177/0961203315627202
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Schoenfeld SR,
      2. Kasturi S,
      3. Costenbader KH
      . The epidemiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among patients with SLE: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013;43:77–95. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2012.12.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Yurkovich M,
      2. Vostretsova K,
      3. Chen W
      , et al. Overall and cause-specific mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:608–16. doi: 10.1002/acr.22173
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Bhatnagar P,
      2. Wickramasinghe K,
      3. Wilkins E
      , et al. Trends in the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in the UK. Heart 2016;102:1945–52. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-309573
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Holmqvist M,
      2. Simard JF,
      3. Asplund K
      , et al. Stroke in systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. RMD Open 2015;1e000168. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000168
    14. ↵
      1. Pooley N,
      2. Langham J,
      3. Langham S
      , et al. The risk of major cardiovascular events in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. PROSPERO CRD42018098690 [updated 2018]. Available https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018098690 (accessed 18 Oct 2019).
    15. ↵
      1. Higgins J,
      2. Green S
      . Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
    16. ↵
      1. Stroup DF,
      2. Berlin JA,
      3. Morton SC
      , et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Tan EM,
      2. Cohen AS,
      3. Fries JF
      , et al. The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982;25:1271–7. doi: 10.1002/art.1780251101
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Hochberg MC
      . Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1725. doi: 10.1002/art.1780400928
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Wells G,
      2. Shea B,
      3. O’Connell D
      , et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2014. Available from http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed 21 Oct 2019)
    20. ↵
      1. Avina-Zubieta JA,
      2. Thomas J,
      3. Sadatsafavi M
      , et al. Risk of incident cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1524–9. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200726
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Avina-Zubieta JA,
      2. Choi HK,
      3. Sadatsafavi M
      , et al. Risk of cardiovascular mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:1690–7. doi: 10.1002/art.24092
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Bhutta AT,
      2. Cleves MA,
      3. Casey PH
      , et al. Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2002;288:728–37. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.6.728
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Takkouche B,
      2. Etminan M,
      3. Montes-Martínez A
      . Personal use of hair dyes and risk of cancer. JAMA 2005;293:2516. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.20.2516
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Greenland S
      . Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiological literature. Epidemiol Rev 2017;9:1–30. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      1. DerSimonian R,
      2. Laird N
      . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Stuck AE,
      2. Rubenstein LZ,
      3. Wieland D
      , et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical. BMJ 1998;316:469–69. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7129.469
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Viechtbauer W
      . Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010;36:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Arkema VE,
      2. Svenungsson E,
      3. Von Euler M
      , et al. Stroke in systemic lupus erythematosus: a Swedish population-based cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1544–9. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210973
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Avina-Zubieta JA,
      2. To F,
      3. Vostretsova K
      , et al. Risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus: a general population-based study. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69:849–56. doi: 10.1002/acr.23018
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Bengtsson C,
      2. Ohman ML,
      3. Nived O
      , et al. Cardiovascular event in systemic lupus erythematosus in northern Sweden: incidence and predictors in a 7-year follow-up study. Lupus 2012;21:452–9. doi: 10.1177/0961203311425524
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Chang Y-SS,
      2. Liu C-JJ,
      3. Chen W-SS
      , et al. Increased risk of subarachnoid hemorrhage in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a nationwide population-based study. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:601–6. doi: 10.1002/acr.21846
      OpenUrl
    32. ↵
      1. Chiu CC,
      2. Huang CC,
      3. Chan WL
      , et al. Increased risk of ischemic stroke in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a nationwide population-based study. Intern Med 2012;51:17–21. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.51.6154
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Dregan A,
      2. Chowienczyk P,
      3. Molokhia M
      . Cardiovascular and type 2 diabetes morbidity and all-cause mortality among diverse chronic inflammatory disorders. Heart 2017;103:1867–73. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311214
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Faurschou M,
      2. Mellemkjaer L,
      3. Starklint H
      , et al. High risk of ischemic heart disease in patients with lupus nephritis. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2400–5. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.110329
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Hak AE,
      2. Karlson EW,
      3. Feskanich D
      , et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus and the risk of cardiovascular disease: results from the nurses’ health study. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1396–402. doi: 10.1002/art.24537
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Hermansen ML,
      2. Lindhardsen J,
      3. Torp-Pedersen C
      , et al. The risk of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis: a Danish nationwide population-based cohort study. Rheumatology 2017;56:709–15. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew475
      OpenUrl
    37. ↵
      1. Kim CH,
      2. Al-Kindi SG,
      3. Jandali B
      , et al. Incidence and risk of heart failure in systemic lupus erythematosus. Heart 2017;103:227–33. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-309561
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. Krishnan E
      . Stroke subtypes among young patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Med 2005;118:1415. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.05.026
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Lin CY,
      2. Shih CC,
      3. Yeh CC
      , et al. Increased risk of acute myocardial infarction and mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: two nationwide retrospective cohort studies. Int J Cardiol 2014;176:847–51. doi: /10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.08.006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Liou TH,
      2. Huang SW,
      3. Lin JW
      , et al. Risk of stroke in patients with rheumatism: a nationwide longitudinal population-based study. Sci Rep 2014;4:5110. doi: 10.1038/srep05110
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Manzi S,
      2. Meilahn EN,
      3. Rairie JE
      , et al. Age-specific incidence rates of myocardial infarction and angina in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison with the framingham study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:408–15. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009122
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Mok CC,
      2. Ho LY,
      3. To CH
      . Annual incidence and standardized incidence ratio of cerebrovascular accidents in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Rheumatol 2009;38:362–8. doi: 10.1080/03009740902776927
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Ramagopalan VS,
      2. Pakpoor J,
      3. Seminog O
      , et al. Risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage in people admitted to hospital with selected immune-mediated diseases: record-linkage studies. BMC Neurol 2013;13:176. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-13-176
      OpenUrl
    44. ↵
      1. Rees F,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Grainge M
      , et al. Burden of comorbidity in systemic lupus erythematosus in the UK, 1999–2012. Arthritis Care Res 2016;68:819–27. doi: 10.1002/acr.22751
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Wang IK,
      2. Muo CH,
      3. Chang YC
      , et al. Risks, subtypes, and hospitalization costs of stroke among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective cohort study in Taiwan. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1611–18. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.111510
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      1. Zoller B,
      2. Li X,
      3. Sundquist J
      , et al. Risk of subsequent ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke in patients hospitalized for immune-mediated diseases: a nationwide follow-up study from Sweden. BMC Neurol 2012;12:41. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-12-41
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Ward MM
      . Premature morbidity from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:338–46. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199902)42:2<338::aid-anr17>3.0.CO;2-U
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Barnado A,
      2. Carroll RJ,
      3. Casey C
      , et al. Phenome-wide association study identifies marked increased in burden of comorbidities in African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2018;20:69. doi: 10.1186/s13075-018-1561-8
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      1. Cook MJ,
      2. Bellou E,
      3. Bowes J
      , et al. The prevalence of co-morbidities and their impact on physical activity in people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases compared with the general population: results from the UK Biobank. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018;57:2172–82. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/key224
      OpenUrl
    50. ↵
      1. Lim SY,
      2. Bae EH,
      3. Han KD
      , et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease: a nationwide, population-based study in Korea. Lupus 2018;27:2050–6. doi: 10.1177/0961203318804883
      OpenUrl
    51. ↵
      1. Fanouriakis A,
      2. Kostopoulou M,
      3. Alunno A
      , et al. 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:736–45. doi: 10.1136/ANNRHEUMDIS-2019-215089
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    52. ↵
      1. Olesińska M,
      2. Saletra A
      . Quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus and its measurement. Reumatologia 2018;56:45–54. doi: 10.5114/reum.2018.74750
      OpenUrl
    53. ↵
      1. Fors Nieves CE,
      2. Izmirly PM
      . Mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus: an updated review. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2016;18:21. doi: 10.1007/s11926-016-0571-2
      OpenUrl
    54. ↵
      1. Mok CC
      . Accelerated atherosclerosis, arterial thromboembolism, and preventive strategies in systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Rheumatol 2006;35:85–95. doi: 10.1080/03009740600601526
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Sari RM,
      2. Kasjmir YI,
      3. Antono D
      , et al. Atherosclerosis prevalence and the correlation between atherosclerosis risk factors and carotid intima-media thickness in below 40-year-old women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Indonesian J Rheumatol 2010;3:24–30.doi: 10.37275/ijr.v2i2.33
      OpenUrl
    56. ↵
      1. Gartshteyn Y,
      2. Braverman G,
      3. Mahtani S
      , et al. Prevalence of coronary artery calcification in young patients with SLE of predominantly Hispanic and African–American descent. Lupus Sci Med 2019;6:e000330. doi: 10.1136/lupus-2019-000330
    57. ↵
      1. Seligman VA,
      2. Lum RF,
      3. Olson JL
      , et al. Demographic differences in the development of lupus nephritis: a retrospective analysis. Am J Med 2002;112:726–9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01118-x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Gustafsson JT,
      2. Herlitz Lindberg M,
      3. Gunnarsson I
      , et al. Excess atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus,-A matter of renal involvement: case control study of 281 SLE patients and 281 individually matched population controls. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0174572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174572
    59. ↵
      1. González LA,
      2. Alarcón GS,
      3. Gonzalez LA
      , et al. The evolving concept of SLE comorbidities. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2017;13:753–68. doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2017.1327353
      OpenUrl
    60. ↵
      1. Ajeganova S,
      2. Hafström I,
      3. Frostegåd J
      . Risk of CV events and mortality in SLE is associated with accumulated disease-damage, anti-phospholipid syndrome and higher carotid intima-media thickness. Lupus Sci Med 2020;7:A107–8.doi: 10.1136/lupus-2020-eurolupus.202
      OpenUrlCrossRef

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NP, JL, LN, SL and EH designed the research. NP, JL, LN, SL and NE conducted the research. NP and NE performed the statistical analysis. NP drafted the manuscript. JL and SL supervised the writing. JY, NP, JL, LN, SL, NE, XW, BD, VB and EH contributed to the data interpretation and revised each draft for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. EH had primary responsibility for the final content and is the guarantor. The corresponding author (BD) attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

    • Funding The current analysis was supported by funding from AstraZeneca. The funder of the study had a role in its design, interpretation of the data and in the writing of the manuscript. The funder had no role in the conduct, collection or analysis of the data. All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    • Competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare that NP, JL, LN, SL and NE have received personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. VB, XW, BD and EH are employees of AstraZeneca.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval Ethics approval was not required because the study involved only data from previous studies and did not involve obtaining new data from participants. No human subject participants were directly involved in this metanalysis.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data underlying the findings described in this manuscript may be obtained in accordance with AstraZeneca’s data sharing policy described at https://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/Submission/Disclosure.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.