4.3 Review

Inflammation, Adiposity, and Atherogenic Dyslipidemia in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Is There a Paradoxical Relationship?

期刊

CURRENT ALLERGY AND ASTHMA REPORTS
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

CURRENT MEDICINE GROUP
DOI: 10.1007/s11882-014-0497-6

关键词

Lipids; Lipoproteins; Pro-inflammatory HDL; Adipose inflammation; Cardiovascular; Risk prediction; Atherosclerosis

资金

  1. Genentech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dyslipidemia is highly prevalent in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and appears to be present very early in the RA disease process, in some studies even before a diagnosis of clinical RA has been made. The association between lipid measures and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in RA appears to be paradoxical, whereby lower levels of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and atherogenic ratios are associated with higher CVD risk. This may be due to the lipid-lowering effects of RA-related systemic inflammation. Therefore, standard CVD risk calculators have been shown to underperform in RA. Data also suggest that lipoprotein particle sizes and the apolipoprotein cargo of lipoproteins skew toward atherogenic dyslipidemia in RA and may contribute to the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Inflammatory burden in RA may also alter the anti-inflammatory and atheroprotective roles associated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Adipose tissue is quantitatively increased in RA patients compared with matched non-RA controls and may be more inflamed and metabolically dysfunctional compared with an otherwise similar non-RA patient. In vitro, animal, and a handful of non-RA human, studies suggest that inflamed, metabolically dysfunctional adipose tissue contributes directly to lower HDL-C levels. In turn, lower HDL-C that has been altered functionally by inflammation may lead to expanded adipose mass and further adipose dysfunction and inflammation. In the last part of this review, we speculate how the RA disease state may recapitulate these processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据