Value of second-trimester uterine artery pulsatility index in pregnancies with systemic lupus erythematosus and/or antiphospholipid syndrome

Author(s):  
Maria J. Canto ◽  
Vera Ortiz-Santamaria ◽  
Josep Palau ◽  
Jordi Cuquet ◽  
Felipe Ojeda
1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 195-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Louis Benifla ◽  
Catherine Tchobroutsky ◽  
Michèle Uzan ◽  
Yvette Sultan ◽  
Bernard J. Weill ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 447-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Pagani ◽  
Rossella Reggia ◽  
Laura Andreoli ◽  
Federico Prefumo ◽  
Sonia Zatti ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91
Author(s):  
Julia L. Riera ◽  
María del R. Maliandi ◽  
Jorge L. Musuruana ◽  
Javier A. Cavallasca

Background: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as a sudden loss of hearing, usually unilateral, of more than 30 dB in 3 contiguous frequencies of the tonal audiometry. SSNHL estimates an incidence ranging from 5 to 20 per 100.000 people per year. In approximately 75% of cases, a cause cannot be identified. However, it could be a clinical manifestation of Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS). Objective: This review will focus on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of the SLE and APS associated SSNHL. Methods: We searched in PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, and Cochrane reviewing reports of Sudden sensorineural hearing loss in SLE and/or APS. Articles written in English and Spanish, and were available in full text, were included. Results: In patients with SLE, bilateral involvement was frequent. Antiphospholipid antibodies were positive in the majority of the patients. Corticosteroids were the mainstay of the treatment. The auditory prognosis was poor with total hearing loss recovery reached in only 22% of patients. : On the other hand, most of the patients with SSNHL and APS were males and presented associated symptoms such as vertigo, tinnitus and/or headache, 75% had bilateral disease. Lupus anticoagulant and aCL were found in equal proportions, all patients were anticoagulated, and aspirin was associated in 25% of the cases. Complete resolution or improvement of symptoms was observed in 25% of the patients. Conclusion: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss, can be a clinical feature of SLE and APS. Treating physicians should be aware of this devastating complication, especially when bilateral involvement occurs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 235.2-235
Author(s):  
J. Y. E. Lee ◽  
A. Mendel ◽  
I. Malhamé ◽  
S. Bernatsky ◽  
E. Vinet

Background:Pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are at high risk of preeclampsia, leading to substantial maternal and fetal morbidity. Aspirin reduces preeclampsia risk but recent studies suggest aspirin is used only in a minority of SLE pregnancies. There is an urgent need to improve preeclampsia counselling and management in this vulnerable population.Objectives:We are conducting the PREPARE (PREeclamPsia knowledge & Aspirin adheRence in lupus prEgnancies) trial, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating an educational tool on preeclampsia knowledge and aspirin adherence among pregnant women with SLE. We present preliminary analyses of the effect of this tool on preeclampsia knowledge.Methods:Consecutive pregnant SLE women are recruited until the 16th gestational week at 5Canadian Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics centres (i.e. Montreal, Halifax, Quebec, Winnipeg, and Calgary) since 05/2018. Subjects are randomly assigned to receive either the specifically-designed educational tool (intervention group) or standard of care (control group). At baseline (i.e. first trimester) and second trimester visits, the participants complete self-administered preeclampsia knowledge questionnaires (scored out of 30 by the research team blinded to the intervention). We restricted the current analysis to participants enrolled in Montreal (accounting for nearly half of the total planned sample size). We performed a univariate linear regression analysis to assess the effect of the educational tool on preeclampsia knowledge (i.e. mean score difference between the two groups from baseline to second trimester visit).Results:Thirty-three pregnant SLE women were included in the study, among which 16 were exposed to the intervention and 17 were unexposed. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups with similar mean maternal age between intervention group (32.2 years, standard deviation, SD, 4.6) and control group (34.1 years, SD 4.2) and identical proportion of subjects with post-secondary education (i.e. 80%). The difference in mean preeclampsia knowledge scores between second trimester and baseline visits in the intervention group was 4.4 points (95% CI -0.1, 9.0) and in the control group was 1.5 points (95% CI -2.7, 5.7). The mean difference in knowledge scores (from baseline to second trimester) for those receiving the educational tool was 2.7 points higher (95% CI -1.5, 6.9) than those receiving standard of care.Conclusion:Approximately midway into the PREPARE trial, we observed a trend for improvement in preeclampsia knowledge from the baseline to the second trimester visit in pregnant women with SLE who received a specifically-designed educational tool compared to the control group, although the CIs included the null. Our RCT is well-poised to provide a new evidence-based approach to improve preeclampsia knowledge in pregnant women with SLE, which could help to optimize aspirin use and outcomes in this vulnerable population.References:[1]Schramm AM, Clowse ME. Aspirin for prevention of preeclampsia in lupus pregnancy. Autoimmune Dis. 2014;2014:920467. doi:10.1155/2014/920467[2]Bujold E, Roberge S, Lacasse Y, et al. Prevention of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction with aspirin started in early pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):402-414. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e9322a[3]Andreoli L, Bertsias GK, Agmon-Levin N, et al. EULAR recommendations for women’s health and the management of family planning, assisted reproduction, pregnancy and menopause in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and/or antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Mar;76(3):476–85. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209770.[4]Mendel A, Bernatsky SB, Hanly JG, et al. Low aspirin use and high prevalence of preeclampsia risk factors among pregnant women in a multinational SLE inception cohort. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(7):1010-1012. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214434Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 602.1-603
Author(s):  
E. S. Torun ◽  
E. Bektaş ◽  
F. Kemik ◽  
M. Bektaş ◽  
C. Cetin ◽  
...  

Background:Recently developed EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have important differences compared to the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) SLE classification criteria and the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria: The obligatory entry criterion of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity is introduced and a “weighted” approach is used1. Sensitivity and specificity of these three criteria have been debated and may vary in different populations and clinical settings.Objectives:We aim to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls from a reference center with dedicated clinics for SLE and other autoimmune/inflammatory connective tissue diseases from Turkey.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of SLE patients and diseased controls for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analysed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients for both SLE patients and diseased controls. SLE patients that did not fulfil 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and diseased controls that fulfilled these criteria were evaluated.Results:A total of 392 SLE patients and 294 non-SLE diseased controls (48 undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 51 Sjögren’s syndrome, 43 idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, 50 systemic sclerosis, 52 primary antiphospholipid syndrome, 15 rheumatoid arthritis, 15 psoriatic arthritis and 20 ANCA associated vasculitis) were included into the study. Hundred and fourteen patients (16.6%) were ANA negative.Sensitivity was more than 90% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and positive predictive value was more than 90% for all three criteria (Table 1). Specificity was the highest for 1997 ACR criteria. Negative predictive value was 76.9% for ACR criteria, 88.4% for SLICC criteria and 91.7% for EULAR/ACR criteria.In only ANA positive patients, sensitivity was 79.6% for 1997 ACR criteria, 92.2% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 96.1% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Specificity was 92.6% for ACR criteria, 87.8% for SLICC criteria 85.2% for EULAR/ACR criteria.Eleven clinically diagnosed SLE patients had insufficient number of items for both 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Both criteria were fulfilled by 16 diseased controls: 9 with Sjögren’s syndrome, 5 with antiphospholipid syndrome, one with dermatomyositis and one with systemic sclerosis.Table 1.Sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteriaSLE (+)SLE (-)Sensitivity (%)Positive Predictive Value (%)Specificity (%)Negative Predictive Value (%)1997 ACR(+) 308(-) 841527978.695.494.976.92012 SLICC(+) 357(-) 352626891.193.291.288.42019 EULAR/ACR(+) 368(-) 242826693.892.990.591.7Conclusion:In this cohort, although all three criteria have sufficient specificity, sensitivity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR criteria are the lowest. Overall, 2019 EULAR/ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria have a comparable performance, but if only ANA positive cases and controls are analysed, the specificity of both criteria decrease to less than 90%. Some SLE patients with a clinical diagnosis lacked sufficient number of criteria. Mostly, patients with Sjögren’s syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome are prone to misclassification by both recent criteria.References:[1]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1151-1159.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document