Comorbidities in Canadian patients with hereditary angioedema: a quantitative survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence linking hereditary angioedema (HAE) to the potential association of developing other comorbidities, and how it is affected by HAE treatment is needed. The objective of this study is to identify comorbidities and measure the prevalence in HAE patients, compared to the prevalence in the general population using multiple Canadian sources when available. METHODS: A quantitative survey design via a self-administered anonymous online questionnaire was conducted from October 13, 2022, to January 11, 2023. Respondents were individuals with HAE, enrolled in the CSL Behring patient support program (CSL Behring PLUS+; PSP). RESULTS: This study included 123 patients (81% female; 60% HAE-1/HAE-2, 24% HAE Normal C1-INH (nC1-INH), 16% unsure of HAE type; 85% of patients were on long-term prophylaxis plus on-demand). Patients reported using the following HAE treatments: C1-esterase inhibitor (subcutaneous or intravenous), lanadelumab, icatibant, danazol, and tranexamic acid. Respondents (69%) reported at least one: autoimmune condition, asthma, or allergy. Reported autoimmune conditions (psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic urticaria, lupus, and psoriatic arthritis) were much higher than the general population (31% versus 5-8%). Patient-reported allergies were two times higher than the general population (54% versus 27%; i.e., aeroallergens) and asthma rates nearly two times higher than the general population (17% versus 8-11%). CONCLUSION: This cohort of HAE patients, most of whom were on prophylaxis, reported an increased prevalence of certain comorbidities compared to the general Canadian population. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the potentially increased risk of autoimmune conditions, allergies, and asthma in patients with HAE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".