Angioedema in chronic spontaneous urticaria is underdiagnosed and has a substantial impact: Analyses from <scp>ASSURE</scp>‐<scp>CSU</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ASSURE-CSU revealed differences in physician and patient reporting of angioedema. This post hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the actual rate of angioedema in the study population and explore differences between patients with and without angioedema. METHODS: This international observational study assessed 673 patients with inadequately controlled chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Physicians abstracted angioedema data from medical records, which were compared with patient-reported data. Patients in the Yes-angioedema category had angioedema reported in the medical record and a patient-reported source. For those in the No-angioedema category, angioedema was reported in neither the medical record nor a patient-reported source. Those in the Misaligned category had angioedema reported in only one source. Statistical comparisons between Yes-angioedema and No-angioedema categories were conducted for measures of CSU activity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), productivity and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Regression analyses explored the relationship between Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score and angioedema, adjusting for important covariates. RESULTS: Among evaluable patients, 259 (40.3%), 173 (26.9%) and 211 (32.8%) were in the Yes-angioedema, No-angioedema and Misaligned category, respectively. CSU activity and impact on HRQoL, productivity, and HCRU was greater for Yes-angioedema patients than No-angioedema patients. After covariate adjustment, mean DLQI score was significantly higher (indicating worse HRQoL) for patients with angioedema versus no angioedema (9.88 vs 7.27, P < .001). The Misaligned category had similar results with Yes-angioedema on all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Angioedema in CSU seems to be under-reported but has significant negative impacts on HRQoL, daily activities, HCRU and work compared with no angioedema.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".