What does this research mean for the field?

Cardiovascular risk scores indicate increased cardiovascular risk in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy patients compared to healthy controls. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.CONFIRMATORY. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate cardiovascular disease risk using non-invasive tools in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies compared to healthy controls.

March 10, 2026Open Access

Cardiovascular risk scores, non-invasive vascular measures and myositis damage index reveal increased cardiovascular risk in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a case-control study

Key Points

To evaluate cardiovascular disease risk using non-invasive tools in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies compared to healthy controls.
Compared 24 IIM patients and 38 healthy controls using various cardiovascular risk calculators.
Applied traditional risk scores like Framingham Risk Score, QRISK3, and ACC/AHA ASCVD.
Used non-invasive measures such as pulse wave velocity and flow-mediated dilation for risk assessment.
Conducted statistical analyses including χ², Fisher’s exact test, and multivariate regression.
Cardiovascular risk scores indicated increased risk in IIM patients compared to controls.
High-risk subgroup showed older age, higher systolic blood pressure, and greater myositis damage index.
No significant difference in cfPWV and FMD between patients and controls, highlighting variability in vascular health.

Abstract

Data about cardiovascular risk (CVR) in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) may not be fully captured by traditional scores. This case-control study evaluated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk through non-invasive tools in IIM patients compared with healthy controls (HC). We assessed CVD risk in 24 IIM patients and 38 paired controls applying traditional calculators such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), contemporary calculators including QRISK3, Globorisk laboratory (Globorisk lab), and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimator, along with non-invasive vascular tools: pulse wave velocity (PWV) and flow-mediated dilation (FMD). Statistical analyses included χ², Fisher’s exact test, Spearman correlation, and multivariate regression. cfPWV and FMD were similar between groups. However, the CVR scores exceeded high-risk thresholds using QRISK3, ACC/AHA ASCVD, and Globorisk lab. We classified as high vs. low CVR according to the risk scores. The high-risk subgroup was characterized by older age (median 66 vs. 44 years, p = 0.001), higher systolic blood pressure (130 vs. 114 mmHg, p = 0.012), and higher MDI (0.07 vs. 0.01, p = 0.010). A multiple linear regression analysis showed that cfPWV was primarily associated with age, and anti-SAE1 antibody. CVR in IIM appears heterogeneous. Although functional vascular biomarkers cfPWV and FMD did not differ overall vs. HC. Multimodal risk characterization integrating risk estimates with non-invasive vascular assessment and clinical disease features warrants prospective outcome-based validation.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper