The vascular endothelial growth factor as a candidate biomarker of systemic lupus erythematosus: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

There is an ongoing search for novel biomarkers of endothelial damage, active disease, and organ dysfunction in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We investigated the role of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a candidate biomarker by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining VEGF concentrations in SLE patients and healthy controls. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception to 31 May 2024 (inclusion criteria: VEGF measurement in SLE patients and healthy controls and SLE patients with and without active disease or specific organ dysfunction in case–control studies, recruitment of adult participants, and availability of the full text in the English language; exclusion criteria: non-case–control studies, participants under 18 years, articles reporting duplicate or irrelevant data, and animal studies). We assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and GRADE, respectively (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024561636). Circulating VEGF concentrations were significantly higher in SLE patients than in controls (22 studies; standardised mean difference, SMD = 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98, p < 0.001; low certainty of evidence). In SLE patients, VEGF concentrations were significantly higher in those with active disease (six studies; SMD = 1.10, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.92, p = 0.009; very low certainty of evidence) and lupus nephritis (four studies; SMD = 0.80, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.57, p = 0.042; very low certainty of evidence). Only one study reported VEGF concentrations in SLE patients with and without pulmonary arterial hypertension. The effect size of the differences in VEGF concentrations between SLE patients and controls was not associated with disease duration, use of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressors, biological matrix assessed, or analytical method used. However, it was significantly associated with the study’s geographical location. The evidence was limited by the high but partially explainable heterogeneity and the presence of publication bias which was addressed with the “trim-and-fill” method (SLE presence), the high but partially explainable heterogeneity and lack of assessment of publication bias because of the limited study number (active disease), and the limited study number preventing the identification of sources of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of publication bias (lupus nephritis). Our results highlight VEGF’s potential role as a SLE biomarker and the need for further research, also given the aforementioned limitations, investigating VEGF concentrations in a wide range of SLE patient subgroups.