OA41 Interstitial lung disease awareness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Aims Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common feature in connective tissue diseases (CTDs), including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the substantial detrimental effects of RA and ILD, there are unmet needs in patient education and understanding of these diseases. We conducted a global survey of patients with CTDs to understand awareness of pulmonary manifestations and the risk of developing ILD. Here, we present data for UK-based patients with RA. Methods This was a cross-sectional online survey of patients living in the UK, aged ≥18 years with CTD, including RA, with or without ILD. Participants had a self-reported medical diagnosis of ≥ 1 CTD and were seeing a specialist doctor (e.g. rheumatologist, respiratory physician) who led care for their first diagnosed CTD. Recruitment was carried out via patient organisations sharing the survey link with their patient community, links shared on Boehringer Ingelheim social and local media channels, and QR codes on posters/flyers in clinical settings. The survey ran from 26 February to 15 March 2024. Results Patients with RA completing the survey (n = 184) had a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 58 years (11.7), 96% were female, and 32% currently or previously experienced shortness of breath at rest for >4 weeks, or a dry, hacking cough for ≥8 weeks (36%). Mean (SD) time since first RA symptom was 14.3 years (11.4) and since RA diagnosis was 12.6 years (10.6). Sixty-five percent were not aware RA may affect the lungs, and of these, 44% were not aware of risk to other organs, 36% were aware of risk to other organs but not the lungs, and 20% were aware of their doctor mentioning risk but could not remember details. A total of 58% responded that their doctor had mentioned RA may affect other organs, and of these, that this included the lungs (61%), lung manifestations could be caused by medication (34%) or smoking status (32%), and 74% responded that the risk level of developing lung manifestations was not described by their doctor. For more information on risks, complications or recommendations related to CTD or RA, patient organisation or support group websites were key information sources (59%), and more patients sought information from social media (29%) than from their doctor (24%). However, Google was the primary information source (64%) for patients to learn more about risks of developing lung manifestations. Almost all participants (99%) considered it appropriate to be informed of the risk of lung manifestations, and 67% would want this information in a lot of detail from their doctor. Conclusion There is an unmet need for informing and educating patients on the risks of organ involvement in RA, including ILD, and for doctors to help facilitate patient awareness of risks. Disclosure A. Bosworth: Honoraria; AbbVie Ltd (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Biogen Idec Limited (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Eli Lilly and Company Limited (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Fresenius Kabi Limited (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Galapagos Biotech Limited (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Inmedix Inc. (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Medac Pharma LLP (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Pfizer Limited (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), Sandoz Limited (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society), UCB Pharma Ltd (paid to National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society). S. Matthews: None. B. Doostdar: Corporate appointments; Employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. B. Taylor: Corporate appointments; Employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. P. Emery: Consultancies; Consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung. Honoraria; AbbVie (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), AstraZeneca (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Bristol Myers Squibb (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Boehringer Ingelheim (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Galapagos (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Gilead (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Lilly (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Novartis (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Pfizer (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events), Roche (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events). Other; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Lilly and Novartis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".