OBJECTIVE: In seeking new approaches to improve lupus pregnancy outcomes, we study the association between pregnancy planning, behaviors recommended by American College of Rheumatology's Reproductive Health Guideline 2020, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. METHODS: Lupus pregnancies in a prospective registry (1/1/2018 to 4/1/2020) were classified as planned or not-planned using the patient-reported London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. These groups were compared for demographics, pre-pregnancy disease activity, pregnancy planning behaviors, and delivery outcomes. RESULTS: Among 43 women with 43 singleton pregnancies the average age was 29.4 years and 42% were Black. Overall, 60% were planned pregnancies and 40% were not-planned (16 ambivalent, 1 unplanned). Women with not-planned pregnancies had lower age, income, and education, and more required Medicaid. Women with not-planned pregnancies were more likely to conceive when lupus activity was higher (p = 0.001), less likely to receive pre-pregnancy counseling with a rheumatologist (p = 0.02), and less likely to continue pregnancy-compatible medications (p = 0.03). Severe PROMISSE adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and severe neonatal outcomes were higher among women with not-planned than planned pregnancies (43% vs 0% p = 0.003; 70% vs 30% p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study identifies pregnancy intention as a potentially modifiable risk factor for poor outcomes in women with lupus. It highlights a unique population of women with lupus at high risk for pregnancy and infant complications: those ambivalent about pregnancy. These women may not be effectively engaging in health behaviors that prevent pregnancy nor those that will prepare for a safe pregnancy. With effective pregnancy planning and contraception guidance, we may decrease their risk for maternal-fetal morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE: In seeking new approaches to improve lupus pregnancy outcomes, we study the association between pregnancy planning, behaviors recommended by American College of Rheumatology's Reproductive Health Guideline 2020, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. METHODS:Lupus pregnancies in a prospective registry (1/1/2018 to 4/1/2020) were classified as planned or not-planned using the patient-reported London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. These groups were compared for demographics, pre-pregnancy disease activity, pregnancy planning behaviors, and delivery outcomes. RESULTS: Among 43 women with 43 singleton pregnancies the average age was 29.4 years and 42% were Black. Overall, 60% were planned pregnancies and 40% were not-planned (16 ambivalent, 1 unplanned). Women with not-planned pregnancies had lower age, income, and education, and more required Medicaid. Women with not-planned pregnancies were more likely to conceive when lupus activity was higher (p = 0.001), less likely to receive pre-pregnancy counseling with a rheumatologist (p = 0.02), and less likely to continue pregnancy-compatible medications (p = 0.03). Severe PROMISSE adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and severe neonatal outcomes were higher among women with not-planned than planned pregnancies (43% vs 0% p = 0.003; 70% vs 30% p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study identifies pregnancy intention as a potentially modifiable risk factor for poor outcomes in women with lupus. It highlights a unique population of women with lupus at high risk for pregnancy and infant complications: those ambivalent about pregnancy. These women may not be effectively engaging in health behaviors that prevent pregnancy nor those that will prepare for a safe pregnancy. With effective pregnancy planning and contraception guidance, we may decrease their risk for maternal-fetal morbidity and mortality.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Brenda L Minor; Veida Elliott; Michelle Fernandez; Lindsay O'Neal; Laura McLeod; Giovanni Delacqua; Francesco Delacqua; Jacqueline Kirby; Stephany N Duda Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Denise V D'Angelo; Brenda Colley Gilbert; Roger W Rochat; John S Santelli; Joan M Herold Journal: Perspect Sex Reprod Health Date: 2004 Sep-Oct
Authors: Stephen J Balevic; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez; Amanda M Eudy; Thomas P Green; Laura E Schanberg; Megan E B Clowse Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Megan E B Clowse; Jing Li; Mehret Birru Talabi; Amanda M Eudy; Gabriela Schmajuk Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Stephen J Balevic; Daniel Weiner; Megan E B Clowse; Amanda M Eudy; Anil R Maharaj; Christoph P Hornik; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez; Daniel Gonzalez Journal: Lupus Sci Med Date: 2022-01
Authors: Martin Aringer; Marta E Alarcón-Riquelme; Megan Clowse; Guillermo J Pons-Estel; Edward M Vital; Maria Dall'Era Journal: Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.346