MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OA12 Patient reported pregnancy outcomes and experiences in women with axial spondyloarthritis: preliminary results from a UK patient survey

2024· article· en· W4395077070 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Mootoo, Maria Mouyis, Bayram Farisoğulları, Pedro Machado, Dale Webb, Jill B. Hamilton, Zoë Clark, Helena Marzo‐Ortega

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsArthritis Society
FundersUCB PharmaCelltrionBiogenVersus ArthritisGilead SciencesAmgenPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAxial spondyloarthritisPregnancyPhysical therapyObstetricsFamily medicineAnkylosing spondylitisSurgerySacroiliitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) affects women of childbearing age and is associated with increased prevalence of pregnancy complications. There are limited UK data published on women with axSpA and pregnancy. We aimed to analyse the pregnancy outcomes and perspectives from women in the UK with axSpA who have been pregnant, with a particular focus on their access to support, flares, medication, and pregnancy complications. Methods An online patient survey was launched using RedCAP for women in the UK with axSpA who are or have been pregnant. The survey including 5 parts for details on: 1) general information and axSpA; 2) maternal; 3) pre-pregnancy; 4) pregnancy; 5) postpartum. The project was approved by UCL Research and Ethics Committee and endorsed by NASS and BRITSpA. Patients were recruited through the NASS and BRITSpA websites, social media platforms and e-mail. The survey collected anonymous data from February to June 2023. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Stata17. Results Among the 172 respondents, 89% were white, mean age was 44 years, 74% were HLA-B27 positive and 35%, 22% and 17% self-reported a history of uveitis, skin psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively. This abstract focuses on data from the first pregnancy after axSpA diagnosis (n = 60, 35% of respondents). Not all questions were answered by participants and data are reported as a percentage of questions answered. Overall, 42% (20/40) reported a flare during their first pregnancy, of which 30% (6/20) contacted their obstetrician, 45% (9/20) contacted rheumatology and 40% (8/20) self-managed. 92% (52/60) of respondents say they planned pregnancy but only 32 (57%) had discussed pregnancy plans with rheumatology and only 26% were seen in a combined obstetric-rheumatology clinic. Regarding medications, 48% (24/50) felt comfortable with their medication regime during pregnancy, 55% stopped their biologic during pregnancy, and 3% started on a biologic. Regarding pregnancy outcomes, 45% had a natural delivery and 54% had caesarean section. 80% (48/60) of first pregnancies resulted in live birth and 16% (7/44) of respondents reported birth defects. Pregnancy complications were reported in 23% (11/48), of which 45% had pre-eclampsia (5/11), 27% had diabetes, 9% had eclampsia and, overall, 19% (9/47) had a self-reported infection. Regarding postpartum, 54% (25/46) had a flare after first delivery; average time to flare post-delivery was 5.4 weeks. Conclusion Preliminary results from UK-based patient survey provides essential insights into self-reported issues of women with axSpA and pregnancy. The study highlights the need for improvement in pre-pregnancy counselling and access, the increased risk of flares during pregnancy, and complications such as pre-eclampsia. Limitations include recall bias as it was a retrospective survey, being unable to clarify respondents' understanding, self-reported outcomes, and incomplete data capturing. Full analyses of the further pregnancies is planned. Disclosure A. Mootoo: None. M. Mouyis: Other; Speaking and advisory fees from UCB and Galapagos. B. Farisogullari: None. P.M. Machado: Consultancies; Consulting/speaker’s fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. D. Webb: None. J. Hamilton: None. Z. Clark: None. H. Marzo-Ortega: Honoraria; AbbVie, Biogen, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB. Grants/research support; Janssen, Novartis and UCB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207