Abstract
The objective of this work was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA) to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) compared with patients without SLE, as well as the absolute risk (AR) (measured by incidence proportion) and incidence rate (IR) of VTE events in patients with SLE. The SLR was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process to identify observational studies evaluating the risk of VTE, DVT, and PE events in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population, published January 2000 to September 2020. Random-effects models were used as the primary approach in the MA. Heterogeneity was assessed on the basis of the I2 value. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results to various conditions, and subgroup analysis was performed for the AR of VTE by antiphospholipid status (aPLs) and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Of the 50 publications included for data extraction, 44 contained data for consideration in the MA of any one of the measures of interest (RR, AR, or IR) for VTE, DVT, or PE. The pooled RR indicates statistically significantly higher risk of VTE (RR 4.38, 95% confidence interval 2.63–7.29) in patients with SLE compared with the general population. Considerable heterogeneity was present in nearly all MA (I2 = 75–100%). Moreover, a higher pooled AR of VTE was estimated in patients with SLE with aPLs (n/N = 0.13) and APS (n/N = 0.63) compared with patients with SLE without aPLs/APS (n/N = 0.07). Overall, there was evidence of an increased risk of VTE, DVT, and PE in patients with SLE compared with the general population.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. |
Despite substantial heterogeneity across studies, this meta-analysis showed evidence of an increased risk of VTE, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in patients with SLE compared with the general population. |
A considerably higher incidence of VTE events was also observed in the SLE population than the general population and patients with concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome. |
The absolute risk and incidence rate of VTE events were also found to be higher in younger (< 40 years) patients with SLE versus those aged 41–64 years. |
Future research is needed to inform on the impact of traditional and SLE-specific risk factors for VTE to further identify patients with SLE at highest risk, allowing for improved prevention and treatment strategies. |
Introduction
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an acquired [1], chronic, heterogeneous autoimmune inflammatory disease [2, 3]. Patients with immune-mediated diseases, such as SLE, have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) events [4]. Like other autoimmune diseases, hypercoagulability and inflammation are general features of SLE, and both factors are responsible for inciting VTEs [5]. Mortality risk in SLE is two to three times greater than the general population [6] with a threefold increase in risk [7] of cardiovascular death compared with the general population. In a large cohort of European patients followed during a 10-year period, it was shown that 25% of deaths were secondary to active disease or to thrombotic events [1].
The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) has been described in about 50% of patients with SLE [8, 9], and has been widely shown to be a significant and independent risk factor for thrombotic events [1]. Independent of aPLs, increased incidence of traditional cardiovascular and lupus-related thrombosis risk factors significantly increases the risk of premature atherosclerosis and/or thrombosis in patients with SLE [10].
While current evidence suggests that patients with SLE have an increased risk of VTE [4, 11], meta-analyses (MAs) that integrate evidence across studies to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) and absolute risk (AR) have not been performed. The primary objective of this work was to evaluate the RRs of VTE events, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in patients with SLE compared with patients without SLE (and no other specific disease state), the general population, or suitable proxies for general population controls, as well as the AR (as measured by incidence proportion) and incidence rate (IR) of VTE events including DVT and PE in patients with SLE. An additional systematic literature review and meta-analysis was the focus of another study, which explores aspects of cardiovascular events in patients with SLE, including acute coronary syndrome, relative to the general population.
Methods
Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteria
This systematic literature review (SLR) and MA was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [12], and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines [13]. Embase (using Elsevier Platform), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process (using PubMed Platform including Daily Update) were searched to identify all relevant, English-only, full-text publications of observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies and analysis of hospital records/database) that evaluated the RR, AR, or IR of VTE, PE, or DVT in patients with SLE. SLE diagnoses were established according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-7, ICD-8, ICD-9, or ICD-10) codes or American College of Rheumatology criteria. The search was limited to published manuscripts dated between 1 January 2000 and 16 September 2020. Abstracts of unpublished studies were excluded. Detailed lists of the search terms are available in Supplementary Material (Tables S1a and S1b). Reference lists of included articles were also searched by hand for further studies of interest.
Supplementary Material Tables S2a and S2b list all the criteria used during the initial (screen 1) and full-text (screen 2) review process. In short, studies were eligible for inclusion if they were observational, included a cohort of adult patients with SLE, and reported either an RR, AR, or IR for the outcomes of interest (VTE, DVT, or PE).
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
Double screening was conducted (two reviewers independently performed two-stage screening) and achieved consensus. Data extraction and quality assessment were quality checked by a second researcher. Data extraction was verified against the source document by a researcher not involved with the extraction. Studies that met eligibility criteria and reported original data were included in the review. Data on study characteristics and measures for outcomes of interest (VTE, DVT, PE events) in patients with SLE were extracted. Data on aPL status/antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) presence were also extracted as available and included as a qualitative description in this review.
The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) [14] was used to assess the quality of each observational study. Studies were classified as low, unclear, medium, or high quality. Several studies met the majority of CASP standards for high quality, although none uniformly met all criteria. Studies included in the MA and their endpoint availability are presented in Supplementary Material Table S3.
Statistical Methods
MA for RR, AR (as measured by incidence proportion), and IR were conducted for outcomes of interest for which there were at least three high-quality studies reporting usable data. Details for each of these risk measures are described below, including the sensitivity analyses. Heterogeneity for all MAs was assessed using the Higgins’ [12] I2 to estimate the percentage of variance and the P value of the chi-squared test. All analyses were conducted in R using the metafor package.
Meta-analysis Methods for Relative Effects
Comparative measures of risk for VTE, DVT, or PE in patients with SLE versus patients without SLE/the general population included hazard ratios (HRs), IR ratios, or standardized IRs (SIRs). These measures are henceforth referred to broadly as RR and were pooled in the primary MA owing to the paucity of studies available. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of primary results to any one study. Studies were included in the RR analysis regardless of the length of follow-up under the assumption of proportional hazards over time. The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) random-effects (RE) model was used to calculate the pooled RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. Fixed effects (FE) models were also fit for completeness. Owing to differences in factors adjusted for across the studies, unadjusted measures were used in preference to adjusted measures where both were available.
Meta-analysis Methods for Proportions
The AR of VTE, DVT, or PE events within the SLE population was measured by an incidence proportion and reported as a percentage [i.e., the number of VTE, DVT, or PE events within the SLE population (n/N)]. The double-arcsine transformation was used for the MA of AR. Studies reporting AR of VTE, DVT, or PE events were pooled via MA for the respective outcome via the REML RE model. The exact binomial approach was used for the reporting of CI of the proportions. FE models were also fit for completeness. Scatter plots that were created considered the AR against the length of follow-up. As no apparent effect of the AR by length of follow-up was observed, sensitivity analyses were not performed according to length of follow-up. Two sensitivity analyses were performed: (1) limiting analysis to only studies of high quality and (2) grouping studies by definition of VTE, i.e., studies defining VTE as only DVT or PE, those defining VTE more broadly, and those that did not report VTE definition. Finally, subgroup analyses looking at the AR of VTE, DVT, and PE events in patients with SLE by APS presence or aPLs were performed.
Meta-analysis Methods for Incidence Rates
IRs reported within individual studies were shifted to be in consistent form of per 1000 patient years (PY). Where PY data were not reported directly, estimates were calculated using the mean length of follow-up. The Freeman–Tukey double-arcsine transformation was used to calculate the overall IR. Random-effects models were fit using the REML option, and FE estimates were used for completeness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted limiting to only high-quality studies.
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Results
Study Selection Process
The initial search returned 1556 references. After screening titles and abstracts, 187 publications were progressed to a full-text review. Following the second round of screening, 50 articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the SLR and MA (Fig. 1). Of the 50 publications selected for data extraction in the SLR, 44 contained data for one or more endpoints for consideration in the MA. Six of the 50 studies were excluded for a variety of reasons, including populations that were dissimilar from the general population of patients with SLE, population/endpoint combination not of interest for MA of priority endpoints, and some endpoint data reported in a format not suitable for MA. A list of excluded studies and the reason for exclusion is outlined in Supplementary Material Table S3. The MA was conducted on the endpoints presented in Supplementary Material Table S4 after conducting a feasibility assessment of the data extracted as part of the SLR.
Study Characteristics
A total of 44 studies were identified, with 3 to 21 contributing to the MA of any one endpoint (VTE, DVT, or PE) and any one risk measure (RR, AR, or IR). Study characteristics, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, are summarized in Table 1. One additional study,Footnote 1 García-Villegas et al. [15] was also included in the MA. Of the 45 studies, 21 were retrospective cohort studies and 23 were prospective cohort studies; there was 1 case–control study. Of the 45 included studies, 19 were conducted in Europe, 14Footnote 2 in North America, and 132 in Asia. Length of follow-up ranged from 2.5 to 15 years across included studies. Owing to the scarcity of data for the MA of any one endpoint and risk measure, the ability to carry out MA subgroup analysis was limited. Where events are reported in fewer than three comparable studies, information was not meta-analyzed but described qualitatively.
Relative Risk of VTE, DVT, and PE Events in Patients with SLE
Five studies were included in the primary analysis of the RR of VTE in patients with SLE compared with the general population (Fig. 2a). In the RE MA, the risk of VTE was 4.38 times higher in patients with SLE than that of the general population (RR 4.38, 95% CI 2.63–7.29). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the RR estimates across the studies (I2 = 89.32%, p = 0.00). A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis resulted in estimates ranging from 3.55 to 4.88. The study by Mok et al. [39] had a notably higher estimate than estimates observed in other studies.
When limiting the analysis to RR of DVT in patients with SLE compared with the general population, three studies were identified (Fig. 2b). The pooled risk of DVT in patients with SLE was 6.35 times higher than that of the general population, (RR 6.35, 95% CI 2.70–14.94). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the RR estimates across the studies (I2 = 89.75%, p = 0.00). A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis resulted in estimates ranging from 4.44 to 9.21. The study by Chung et al. [28] had a notably higher estimate than other studies.
When limiting the analysis to RR of PE in patients with SLE compared with the general population, four studies were identified (Fig. 2c). The pooled risk of PE in patients with SLE was approximately five times higher than that of the general population (RR 4.94, 95% CI 1.90–12.86). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the RR estimates across the studies (I2 = 96.24%, p = 0.00). Following the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, estimates ranged from 3.06 to 6.65. The study by Chung et al. [28] had a notably higher estimate than other studies.
Absolute Risk of VTE, DVT, and PE Events in Patients with SLE
Twenty studies were included in the primary analysis of the AR of VTE in patients with SLE (Fig. 3a). The pooled estimate of the AR of VTE events (measured as cumulative incidence proportion) was 0.06 (n/N; 95% CI 0.05–0.08). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies (I2 = 95.6%, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis considering the 14 high-quality studies was comparable to the primary analysis [0.05 (n/N); 95% CI 0.04–0.07]. Sensitivity analyses looking for high-quality studies and VTE definition were conducted with heterogeneity remaining high (Fig. S1). A scatter plot of the AR of VTE, DVT, and PE was generated to inform possible heterogeneity in AR arising from between-study differences in length of follow-up. No obvious visual trend of increasing AR of VTE were observed in the studies with increasing follow-up.
When limiting the analysis to AR of DVT in patients with SLE, 21 studies were identified (Fig. 3b). The pooled AR estimate was 0.05 (n/N; 95% CI 0.03–0.07), ranging from 0.01 to 0.30 (n/N) across the studies. Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 96.5%, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis considering the 14 high-quality studies found a pooled estimate of 0.04 (n/N; 95% CI 0.02–0.07), a comparable estimate as observed in the primary analysis, yet substantial heterogeneity remained (I2 = 96%, p < 0.01) (Fig. S2). Two studies [35, 45] were clear outliers reporting a higher proportion of events than seen in the other studies identified. Visual inspection of a scatter plot of AR of DVT against the length of follow-up suggested a slight upward trend with an increasing AR of DVT events with increasing follow-up.
When limiting the analysis to AR of PE events in patients with SLE, 17 studies were identified (Fig. 3c). Absolute risk of PE events in patients with SLE differed across the included studies, ranging from 0.00 to 0.06 (n/N) with a pooled estimate of 0.02 (n/N; 95% CI 0.01–0.03). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the AR estimates across the studies (I2 = 94.1%, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis including the 13 high-quality studies did not differ from the primary analysis (AR 0.02; n/N; 95% CI 0.01–0.03), and substantial heterogeneity remained (I2 = 95.2%, p < 0.01) (Fig. S3). A scatter plot of the AR of PE against the length of follow-up within the studies did not indicate an obvious trend of increasing AR with increasing follow-up time.
Incidence Rate of VTE, DVT, and PE Events in Patients with SLE
Twelve studies were included in the primary analysis of the IR of VTE events in patients with SLE (Fig. 4a). IR of VTE events differed across the included studies, ranging from 4.2 to 24 per 1000 PY. The pooled IR (RE) of VTE events in patients with SLE was 8.04 per 1000 PY (95% CI 5.48–11.08). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies (I2 = 91.9%, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis considering a subset of high-quality studies, VTE definition and studies where patients had been followed up from disease onset found a similar pooled IR of VTE events as observed in the primary analysis (8.34 per 1000 PY; 95% CI 5.23–12.15 for only the ten high-quality studies), and substantial heterogeneity remained (I2 = 92.9%, p < 0.01) (Fig. S4).
When limiting the analysis to IR of DVT events in patients with SLE, seven studies were identified (Fig. 4b). IR of DVT events differed across the included studies, ranging from 1.39 to 9.66 per 1000 PY with a pooled IR (RE) of 3.11 per 1000 PY (95% CI 1.73–4.86). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 88.4%, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis considering high-quality studies and studies where patients had been followed up from disease onset found a comparable pooled IR (RE) as to the primary analysis (3.28 per 1000 PY; 95% CI 1.46–5.79), and substantial heterogeneity remained (I2 = 90.9%, p < 0.01) (Fig. S5).
When limiting the analysis to PE events in patients with SLE, seven studies were identified (Fig. 4c). Incidence rate of PE events in patients with SLE differed across the included studies, ranging from 0 to 11.41 per 1000 PY with a pooled IR (RE) of 1.40 per 1000 PY (95% CI 0.15–3.60). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 89.0%, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis considering high-quality studies and studies where patients had been followed up from disease onset found a comparable pooled IR as the primary analysis (1.97 per 1000 PY; 95% CI 0.14–5.59), and substantial heterogeneity remained (I2 = 92.5%, p < 0.01) (Fig. S6).
Subgroup Analyses
Absolute Risk of VTE, DVT, and PE in Patients with SLE by aPL Status or APS Presence
Subgroup analyses were conducted focusing on patients with SLE by aPL status and APS presence. The pooled AR of VTE events in patients with SLE (measured as cumulative incidence proportion) and aPLs was 0.13 (n/N; 95% CI 0.07–0.21), and in patients with SLE and no aPLs was 0.07 (n/N; 95% CI 0.04–0.10) (Fig. 5a). The pooled AR (RE) of VTE events in patients with SLE and APS was 0.63 (n/N; 95% CI 0.00–1.00) (Fig. 5b). Considerable heterogeneity was observed for patients with SLE and aPLs (I2 = 90.8%, p < 0.01), and for patients with SLE and APS (I2 = 98.5%, p < 0.01).
Subgroup analyses of the AR of DVT events (Supplementary Material Table S5) and the AR of PE events (Supplementary Material Table S6) in patients with SLE by APS presence or aPLs were conducted. The pooled estimate of the AR of DVT events in patients with SLE and aPL was 0.11 (n/N; 95% CI 0.03–0.22), and in patients with SLE and no aPL was 0.08 (n/N; 95% CI 0.00–0.25). Substantial heterogeneity was observed for both groups (I2 = 92.6%, p < 0.01 and I2 = 91.0%, p < 0.01, respectively). The pooled estimate of AR of DVT events in patients with SLE and APS (measured as cumulative incidence proportion) was 0.26 (n/N; 95% CI 0.15–0.39), and in patients with SLE and no APS was 0.01 (n/N; 95% CI 0.00–0.05). Similarly, considerable heterogeneity was observed for both groups (I2 = 79.3%, p < 0.01 and I2 = 74.8%, p = 0.02, respectively). The pooled AR of PE events in patients with SLE and aPL was 0.05 (n/N; 95% CI 0.03–0.08), and in patients with SLE and no aPL was 0.01 (n/N; 95% CI 0.00–0.02). No to minimal heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 0%, p = 0.75 and I2 = 33%, p = 0.21, respectively). The pooled estimate of the AR of PE events in patients with SLE and APS was 0.22 (n/N; 95% CI 0.12–0.34), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 66%, p = 0.05).
Descriptive Analyses—Subgroup Evaluation of Age
Owing to the limited number of comparable studies reporting relevant endpoint data by age, only narrative descriptions of the studies were conducted. The study by Mok et al. [39] calculated the SIR of VTE events in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, stratified by age group: < 30 years, ≥ 30 to 40 years, ≥ 40 to 50 years, and ≥ 50 to 60 years. The highest RR of VTE events was observed in those aged < 30 years (SIR 65.8; 95% CI 29.3–147.9) with the lowest risk observed in the ≥ 50 to 60 years (SIR 4.3; 95% CI 0.6–31.2). The RR in the remaining age groups declined with age. The study by Yusuf et al. [57] found a similar trend in the adjusted HR of VTE in patients with SLE, compared with the general population with higher risk observed in patients aged 18–40 years (adjusted HR 7.18; 95% CI 3.64–14.14) versus patients aged 41–64 years (adjusted HR 2.58; 95% CI 1.88–3.54). The study by Chung et al. [28] also observed a similar trend for PE in patients ≤ 35 years (adjusted HR 52.8; 95% CI 23.0–121.3) and in patients ≥ 65 years (adjusted HR 2.97; 95% CI 1.23–7.20), and the RR of PE events was highest in patients ≤ 35 years (adjusted HR 71.5; 95% CI 22.3–228.9) and lowest in patients ≥ 65 years (adjusted HR 3.81; 95% CI 1.15–12.7). The risk of VTE events after 4 years of follow-up was found to be greater for patients aged 18–40 years than for patients aged 41–64 years.
Discussion
VTEs are well-recognized complications in patients with SLE; in this MA, patients with SLE had a statistically significantly increased risk of VTE (RR 4.38). This is in line with previously published analyses [59, 60], one of which found that the risk of VTE was over three- to sixfold higher in patients with SLE compared with the general population [59]. Descriptive analyses suggest that the RR of VTE in younger patients with SLE is greater relative to younger patients in the general population, supporting findings of the studies by Mok et al. [39] and Yusuf et al. [57] for VTE, and Chung et al. [28] for DVT and PE. Additionally, this MA found a considerably higher incidence of VTE events in the SLE population (AR 0.06; n/N and IR = 8.04/1000 PY) than observed in the general population [5, 59, 60], and in patients with other autoimmune diseases [46]. Furthermore, a higher AR of VTE was estimated in patients with SLE with aPLs (n/N = 0.13) and APS (n/N = 0.63) versus patients with SLE without aPLs/APS (n/N = 0.07). The AR and IR of VTE events were also found to be higher in younger (< 40 years) patients with SLE (n/N = 0.03 and 11.28/1000 PY, respectively) versus those aged 41–64 years (n/N = 0.02 and 9.29/1000 PY, respectively) [57]. Similarly, the risk of DVT (RR 6.35) and PE (RR 4.94) in patients with SLE was found to be statistically significantly greater than in the general population. The pooled estimated AR and IR of DVT (AR 0.05, IR 3.11/1000 PY) and PE (AR 0.02, IR 1.4/1000 PY) in patients with SLE is considerably higher than the IR of DVT and PE events in the general population (0.57 [5] and 0.67 [5]/1000 PY, respectively). Overall, the findings of this analysis suggest that patients with SLE have a higher incidence of VTE, DVT, and PE compared with other groups.
The differences between the results across the studies are likely due to a complex mix of different factors, such as definitions of VTE, study design, patient inclusion criteria, medical practice for screening of VTE, and additional factors such as duration or severity of SLE disease. Our study is strengthened by a rigorous methodological approach based on international guidelines for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and MAs. Findings aligned with expectations and with results reported in previous publications; however, evidence gaps were identified in a range of outcomes of interest relating to both VTE events and the association between VTE and cardiovascular risk factors. Furthermore, data for subgroups of interest were very limited and, when available, inconsistently defined. It would be beneficial for these gaps in the literature to be addressed with future research.
Limitations
Substantial heterogeneity was observed for most of the endpoints. A potential limitation of the included studies is that several were conducted in the same countries with some studies using the same cohort of patients. This heterogeneity is not explained by the methodological quality of the included studies as substantial heterogeneity was still present in sensitivity analyses in which only high-quality studies were considered. Nonetheless, the studies included in this MA consisted of a mix of cohort and database studies from medical records or registries. These databases differ in terms of data completeness, accuracy, and coverage of the population, hence being a potential source of variation across studies. Additional sources of heterogeneity may also be due to differences in the patients included in the studies; in relation to the pooled estimates of the RR of VTE events in patients with SLE, some studies [5, 16, 57] included incident cases of SLE, whereas another study [39] included a mix of incident and prevalent cases. Differences were also seen in the mean age of patient groups, disease duration, percentage of patients with baseline comorbidities, treatment regimens, and aPL positivity. Similar variation was observed across the studies reporting the RR of DVT and PE events in patients with SLE, compared with the general population or a suitable proxy. In relation to pooled AR estimates for VTE and PE, the length of follow-up does not appear to be responsible for this heterogeneity; however, similar to the RR analyses, additional sources of heterogeneity may have resulted from between-study differences of AR and IR of VTE, DVT, and PE events. Definitions of VTE were also considered as a source of heterogeneity; definitions varied in their comprehensiveness, with some studies defining VTE events as comprising DVT of the limbs and PE only, and other studies expanding their definitions to include other anatomical sites or organs. However, sensitivity analysis by definition did not lead to a reduction in heterogeneity.
Conclusion
Despite substantial heterogeneity across studies, there is evidence of an increased risk of VTE, DVT, and PE in patients with SLE compared with the general population. Moreover, subgroup analyses suggest that the AR of VTE, DVT, and PE events is higher in patients with APS or with aPL. Despite differences across the studies and the observed heterogeneity in the pooled estimates, the sensitivity analysis found comparable results to the primary analysis, adding confidence to the estimates of risk. Elevated risks of VTEs and the associated risk factors among patients with immune-mediated disorders should be carefully considered when optimizing treatment to appropriately balance risks and benefits of the chosen therapy. Future research is needed to inform on the impact of traditional and SLE-specific risk factors for VTE to further identify patients with SLE at highest risk, allowing for improved prevention and treatment strategies. Additionally, a harmonization of subgroup definitions and other variables (e.g., age groups, steroid dosing categories) is needed to allow for better cross-trial comparisons and to assist future MA-type analyses.
Notes
This study was identified while reviewing the evidence for a related project: Meta-analysis of Cardiovascular Event Endpoints and Risk Factors in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.
Mok et al.37 included patients from China and the USA; this has therefore been counted twice.
References
Bazzan M, Vaccarino A, Marletto F. Systemic lupus erythematosus and thrombosis. Thromb J. 2015;13:16.
Dörner T, Furie R. Novel paradigms in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet. 2019;393:2344–58.
Cojocaru M, Cojocaru IM, Silosi I, Vrabie CD. Manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus. Maedica (Bucur). 2011;6:330–6.
Setyawan J, Mu F, Yarur A, et al. Risk of thromboembolic events and associated risk factors, including treatments, in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Clin Ther. 2021;43:1392-407.e1.
Aviña-Zubieta JA, Vostretsova K, De Vera MA, Sayre EC, Choi HK. The risk of pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: a general population-based study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;45:195–201.
Fava A, Petri M. Systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and clinical management. J Autoimmun. 2019;96:1–13.
Björnådal L, Yin L, Granath F, Klareskog L, Ekbom A. 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.
Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Shoenfeld Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 5-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:1428–32.
Cervera R, Serrano R, Pons-Estel GJ, et al. Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 10-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:1011–8.
Erkan D. Lupus and thrombosis. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:1715–7.
Kishore S, Jatwani S, Malhotra B, Lirette ST, Mittal V, Majithia V. Systemic lupus erythematosus is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients leading to poor outcomes and a higher cost: results from nationwide inpatient sample database 2003–2011. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2019;1:194–200.
Higgins JPTJCJ, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2nd edition. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.
Programme CAS. Systematic review. Accessed April 4th 2022, https://casp-uk.net/glossary/systematic-review/.
García-Villegas EA, Lerman-Garber I, Flores-Suárez LF, Aguilar-Salinas C, Márquez González H, Villa-Romero AR. Prognostic value of metabolic syndrome for the development of cardiovascular disease in a cohort of premenopausal women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Med Clin (Barc). 2015;144:289–96.
Ahlehoff O, Wu JJ, Raunsø J, et al. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus and the risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Lupus. 2017;26:1435–9.
Akimoto T, Kobayashi S, Tamura N, et al. Risk factors for recurrent thrombosis: prospective study of a cohort of Japanese systemic lupus erythematosus. Angiology. 2005;56:601–9.
Baronaite Hansen R, Jacobsen S. Infections increase risk of arterial and venous thromboses in Danish patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: 5102 patient-years of followup. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:1817–22.
Becker-Merok A, Nossent J. Prevalence, predictors and outcome of vascular damage in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2009;18:508–15.
Bizzaro N, Ghirardello A, Zampieri S, et al. Anti-prothrombin antibodies predict thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a 15-year longitudinal study. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5:1158–64.
Brouwer JL, Bijl M, Veeger NJ, Kluin-Nelemans HC, van der Meer J. The contribution of inherited and acquired thrombophilic defects, alone or combined with antiphospholipid antibodies, to venous and arterial thromboembolism in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Blood. 2004;104:143–8.
Burgos PI, McGwin G Jr, Reveille JD, Vilá LM, Alarcón GS. Factors predictive of thrombotic events in lumina, a multi-ethnic cohort of SLE patients (LXXII). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49:1720–5.
Calvo-Alén J, Toloza SM, Fernández M, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus in a multiethnic US cohort (LUMINA). XXV Smoking, older age, disease activity, lupus anticoagulant, and glucocorticoid dose as risk factors for the occurrence of venous thrombosis in lupus patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:2060–8.
Chabbert-Buffet N, Amoura Z, Scarabin PY, et al. Pregnane progestin contraception in systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal study of 187 patients. Contraception. 2011;83:229–37.
Chang ER, Pineau CA, Bernatsky S, Neville C, Clarke AE, Fortin PR. Risk for incident arterial or venous vascular events varies over the course of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:1780–4.
Chen J, Sun S, Yan Q, Bao C, Fu Q. Elevated partial antiphospholipid score is a strong risk factor for thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a validation study. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:333–40.
Choojitarom K, Verasertniyom O, Totemchokchyakarn K, Nantiruj K, Sumethkul V, Janwityanujit S. Lupus nephritis and Raynaud’s phenomenon are significant risk factors for vascular thrombosis in SLE patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27:345–51.
Chung WS, Lin CL, Chang SN, Lu CC, Kao CH. Systemic lupus erythematosus increases the risks of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a nationwide cohort study. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12:452–8.
Domingues V, Magder LS, Petri M. Assessment of the independent associations of IgG, IgM and IgA isotypes of anticardiolipin with thrombosis in SLE. Lupus Sci Med. 2016;3: e000107.
Hinojosa-Azaola A, Romero-Diaz J, Vargas-Ruiz AG, et al. Venous and arterial thrombotic events in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2016;43:576–86.
Hsu CY, Lin YS, Su YJ, et al. Effect of long-term hydroxychloroquine on vascular events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a database prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:2212–21.
Johannesdottir SA, Schmidt M, Horváth-Puhó E, Sørensen HT. Autoimmune skin and connective tissue diseases and risk of venous thromboembolism: a population-based case-control study. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10:815–21.
Kaiser R, Cleveland CM, Criswell LA. Risk and protective factors for thrombosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: results from a large, multi-ethnic cohort. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:238–41.
Kaiser R, Li Y, Chang M, et al. Genetic risk factors for thrombosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2012;39:1603–10.
Manger K, Manger B, Repp R, et al. Definition of risk factors for death, end stage renal disease, and thromboembolic events in a monocentric cohort of 338 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61:1065–70.
Martinez-Berriotxoa A, Ruiz-Irastorza G, Egurbide MV, et al. Transiently positive anticardiolipin antibodies and risk of thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2007;16:810–6.
McMahon MA, Keogan M, O’Connell P, Kearns G. The prevalence of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome among systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Ir Med J. 2006;99:296–8.
Mok CC, Tang SS, To CH, Petri M. Incidence and risk factors of thromboembolism in systemic lupus erythematosus: a comparison of three ethnic groups. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:2774–82.
Mok CC, Ho LY, Yu KL, To CH. Venous thromboembolism in southern Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29:599–604.
Mok CC, Chan PT, Ho LY, Yu KL, To CH. Prevalence of the antiphospholipid syndrome and its effect on survival in 679 Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2013;92:217–22.
Mok MY, Chan EY, Fong DY, Leung KF, Wong WS, Lau CS. Antiphospholipid antibody profiles and their clinical associations in Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:622–8.
Moroni G, Ventura D, Riva P, et al. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk for chronic renal insufficiency in patients with lupus nephritis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:28–36.
Ramirez GA, Canti V, Del Rosso S, et al. Diagnostic performance of aPS/PT antibodies in neuropsychiatric lupus and cardiovascular complications of systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoimmunity. 2020;53:21–7.
Ravishankar RA, Chand K. Immunological profile of SLE patients with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. Int J Pharma Bio Sci. 2014;5:B473–8.
Regéczy N, Lakos G, Balogh I, Ajzner E, Kiss E, Szegedi G. The Leiden mutation of coagulation factor V in Hungarian SLE patients. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2000;6:41–5.
Romero-Díaz J, García-Sosa I, Sánchez-Guerrero J. Thrombosis in systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune diseases of recent onset. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:68–75.
Sciascia S, Cuadrado MJ, Sanna G, et al. Thrombotic risk assessment in systemic lupus erythematosus: validation of the global antiphospholipid syndrome score in a prospective cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66:1915–20.
Singh NK, Agrawal A, Singh MN, et al. Prevalence and pattern of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome in a hospital based longitudinal study of 193 patients of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Assoc Physicians India. 2013;61:623–6.
Somers E, Magder LS, Petri M. Antiphospholipid antibodies and incidence of venous thrombosis in a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:2531–6.
Taraborelli M, Lazzaroni MG, Martinazzi N, et al. The role of clinically significant antiphospholipid antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. Reumatismo. 2016;68:137–43.
Tarr T, Lakos G, Bhattoa HP, et al. Clinical thrombotic manifestations in SLE patients with and without antiphospholipid antibodies: a 5-year follow-up. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2007;32:131–7.
Tektonidou MG, Sotsiou F, Nakopoulou L, Vlachoyiannopoulos PG, Moutsopoulos HM. Antiphospholipid syndrome nephropathy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid antibodies: prevalence, clinical associations, and long-term outcome. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:2569–79.
Tektonidou MG, Laskari K, Panagiotakos DB, Moutsopoulos HM. Risk factors for thrombosis and primary thrombosis prevention in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with or without antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:29–36.
To CH, Petri M. Is antibody clustering predictive of clinical subsets and damage in systemic lupus erythematosus? Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:4003–10.
Wang CR, Liu MF. Rituximab usage in systemic lupus erythematosus-associated antiphospholipid syndrome: a single-center experience. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;46:102–8.
Watanabe T, Oku K, Amengual O, et al. Effects of statins on thrombosis development in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid antibodies. Lupus. 2018;27:225–34.
Yusuf HR, Hooper WC, Grosse SD, Parker CS, Boulet SL, Ortel TL. Risk of venous thromboembolism occurrence among adults with selected autoimmune diseases: a study among a U.S. cohort of commercial insurance enrollees. Thromb Res. 2015;135:50–7.
Zöller B, Li X, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Risk of pulmonary embolism in patients with autoimmune disorders: a nationwide follow-up study from Sweden. Lancet. 2012;379:244–9.
Pooley N, Yazdany J, Langham J, et al. Fri0249 the risk of venous thromboembolic events in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:804.
Lee JJ, Pope JE. A meta-analysis of the risk of venous thromboembolism in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16:435.
Acknowledgements
Funding
Sponsorship for this study and Rapid Service Fee were funded by Eli Lilly and Company.
Authorship
All authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work, and have provided final approval of this version to be published.
Authorship Contributions
N.B., K.J.M., J.W., and R.C. contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study. N.B., J.W., K.J.M., and J.M.B. completed the analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors drafted and contributed critical revisions to the manuscript.
Medical Writing, Editorial, and Other Assistance
Medical writing and editorial support were provided by Geraldine Fahy, Ph.D. and Sarah Ryan, MSc of Eli Lilly and Company.
Disclosures
Ricard Cervera MD, Ph.D, has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company. RTI Health Solutions has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company for consultation and data analysis conducted by José Marcano Belisario, Ph.D. Kristin Joy Meyers, Ph.D, Jennifer Workman, M.B.A, and Natalia Bello, M.D., are employees of, and own stock in, Eli Lilly and Company. Disclosure forms provided by authors are available with the full text of this article.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
This study is an SLR and MA and no novel data were generated. All data relevant to the study are either included in the article or uploaded as supplementary material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bello, N., Meyers, K.J., Workman, J. et al. Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Venous Thromboembolism Events in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Rheumatol Ther 10, 7–34 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-022-00513-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-022-00513-1