Observational studyBMC medicine2025
Rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease associations in the UK Biobank.
Observational study in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated observational and causal relationships between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cardiovascular disease and imaging phenotypes in the UK Biobank.
methodsRA was defined using linked hospital records, self-reported diagnostics, and medication data. Controls were participants without a record of RA. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) were defined using linked hospital records over an average of 14 years of prospective follow-up, including: ischaemic heart diseases (IHD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies, pericardial disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and venous thromboembolism. For participants with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) available as part of the UK Biobank Imaging Study, we considered measures of cardiac structure and function extracted using automated pipelines. Associations of RA with prevalent and incident CVDs were calculated using logistic and Cox regression. Linear regression was used to examine associations with CMR metrics. Models were adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical confounders. Causal associations were assessed using two-sample Mendelian randomisation. Genetic instruments for RA (22,350 cases and 74,823 controls), nine CVDs (FinnGen, n = 224,737), and 11 CMR phenotypes (UK Biobank) were extracted and associations assessed using inverse-variance weighting with pleiotropy adjustments and multiple testing corrections.
resultsThe analysis included 1,436 RA cases (mean age 59.9 years; 70.6% female) and 476,975 controls (mean age 56.5 years; 54.3% female). Participants with RA lived in more socioeconomically deprived areas (as per the Townsend Deprivation Index), had lower physical activity levels, were more likely to smoke, and had a higher baseline prevalence of CVDs. In fully adjusted models, participants with RA had a significantly higher hazard of multiple incident CVDs, with the greatest risks related to pericardial disease (HR 2.63 (1.85, 3.74)), heart failure (HR 1.68 (1.42, 1.99)), and AMI (HR 1.53 (1.20, 1.96)). Mendelian Randomisation analyses supported causal links between RA and AMI (OR 1.07 (1.02, 1.09), p = 0.009), arrhythmias (OR 1.05 (1.02, 1.06), p = 0.0007), and IHD (OR 1.05 (1.01, 1.06), p = 0.036). No significant associations were identified between RA and CMR phenotypes.
conclusionsPeople with RA have a heightened risk of multiple prevalent and incident CVDs, independent of shared risk factors, with suggestions of causal links with IHD, AMI, and arrhythmias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.