Postpartum Depression in Reproductive-Age Women With and Without Rheumatic Disease: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine postpartum depression (PPD) among women with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in comparison with a matched population without rheumatic disease (RD). METHODS: A retrospective analysis using the 2013-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was conducted. Pregnant women with axSpA, PsA, or RA were identified, and the delivery date was used as the index date. We restricted the sample to women ≤ 55 years with continuous enrollment ≥ 6 months before date of last menstrual period and throughout pregnancy. Each patient was matched with 4 individuals without RD on: (1) maternal age at delivery, (2) prior history of depression, and (3) duration of depression before delivery. Cox frailty proportional hazards models estimated the crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% CI of incident postpartum depression within 1 year among women with axSpA, PsA, or RA (axSpA/PsA/RA cohort) compared to the matched non-RD comparison group. RESULTS: Overall, 2667 women with axSpA, PsA, or RA and 10,668 patients without any RD were included. The median follow-up time in days was 256 (IQR 93-366) and 265 (IQR 99-366) for the axSpA/PsA/RA cohort and matched non-RD comparison group, respectively. Development of PPD was more common in the axSpA/PsA/RA cohort relative to the matched non-RD comparison group (axSpA/PsA/RA cohort: 17.2%; matched non-RD comparison group: 12.8%; aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36). CONCLUSION: Postpartum depression is significantly higher in women of reproductive age with axSpA/PsA/RA when compared to those without RD.

Comanagement with rheumatology and prescription biologics filled during pregnancy in women with rheumatic diseases: a retrospective analysis of US administrative claims data.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate comanagement with rheumatology and biological prescriptions filled during pregnancy among women with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to examine factors associated with receiving comanagement with rheumatology during pregnancy. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of US claims data. SETTING: Commercially insured enrollees using data from the 2013-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. PARTICIPANTS: We identified 4131 pregnant women aged ≤55 years from the 2013-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database with an International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision/10th Revision codes for RA, axSpA or PsA, with continuous enrolment at ≥3 months before the date of the last menstrual period (LMP) (index date) and throughout pregnancy. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Filled biologics (prescriptions and infusions) claims were categorised by 90 days before the LMP and trimester, as were primary care, obstetrician and rheumatological claims. RESULTS: The prevalence of axSpA, RA and PsA was 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.04% among reproductive age women. The average maternal age was 32.7 years (SD 5.7). During pregnancy, 9.1% of those with axSpA (n=2,410) and 56.4% of those with RA/PsA (n=1,721) had a rheumatological claim. Biologics claims were less common among those with axSpA (90 days before LMP: 1.6%, during pregnancy: 1.1%) than those with RA/PsA (90 days before LMP: 11.9%, during pregnancy: 6.9%). Medications during pregnancy included corticosteroids (axSpA: 0.3%, RA/PsA: 2.2%), non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (axSpA: 0.2%, RA/PsA: 1.7%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (axSpA: 0.2%, RA/PsA: 1.3%) and opioids (axSpA: 0.2%, RA/PsA: 0.6%). Established rheumatological care and biologics claims during the 90 days before LMP showed good prediction accuracy for receiving comanagement with rheumatology during pregnancy (axSpA: area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) 0.73, RA/PsA: AUC 0.70). CONCLUSION: Comanagement with rheumatology during pregnancy occurs infrequently, especially for women with axSpA. Biologics claims during pregnancy may not align with published guidelines. Future research is warranted to improve comanagement with rheumatology during pregnancy.

Primary care physician perspectives on screening for axial spondyloarthritis: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) experience lengthy diagnostic delays upwards of 14 years. (5-14 years). Screening tools for axSpA have been proposed for use in primary care settings, but whether this approach could be implemented into busy primary care settings remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To solicit feedback from primary care physicians regarding questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) Expert Criteria and gain insight about barriers and facilitators for implementing axSpA screening in primary care. METHODS: Guided by Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-criteria), we recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in-depth interviews with eight family medicine physicians and ten internists (purposeful sampling) using immersion/crystallization techniques. RESULTS: Few physicians reported awareness of existing classification criteria for axSpA, and many reported a lack of confidence in their ability to distinguish between inflammatory and mechanical back pain. From three domains, 10 subthemes emerged: 1) typical work-up of axSpA patients in primary care, with subthemes including the clues involved in work-up and role of clinical examinations for axSpA; 2) feedback on questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: ASAS Expert Criteria, with subthemes to evaluate contents/questions of a potential screening tool for axSpA; and 3) implementation of the screening tool in primary care settings, with subthemes of perceived barriers including awareness, time, other conditions to screen, rare disease, and lack of structured questionnaire for back pain and perceived facilitators including workflow issues and awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians believed that an improved screening instrument and a strong evidence-base to support the need for screening for axSpA are required. The implementation of axSpA screening into a busy primary care practice requires integration into the practice workflow, with use of technology suggested as a possible way to improve efficiency.