4.3 Article

Joint involvement influences quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus patients

Journal

LUPUS
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 478-483

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203320979039

Keywords

Systemic lupus erythematosus; musculoskeletal; quality of life

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that joint involvement significantly influences disease-specific quality of life in SLE patients, with the musculoskeletal activity index DAS28 better correlating with LupusQoL domains, highlighting the need for specific musculoskeletal activity indices.
Introduction Joint involvement represents the major determinant in quality of life (QoL)in Systemic Lupus Erhytematosus (SLE) patients. However, QoLhas been generally evaluated by non-specific questionnaires. We evaluated the relationship between SLE musculoskeletal manifestations and QoL, assessed by LupusQoL. Methods Patients with joint involvement (group A) were compared with those without this feature (group B). Disease activity was assessed by SLEDAI-2k in the whole population, while DAS28 and swollen to tender ratio were applied to assess joint activity. LupusQoL was administered to all the patients. Results Group A included 110 patients [M/F 8/102; median age 49 years (IQR 13), median disease duration 156 months (IQR 216)], group B 58 [M/F 11/47; median age 40 years (IQR 15), median disease duration 84 months (IQR 108)].We found significanlty lower values in all the LupusQoL domains except for one (burden to others) in group A in comparison with group B. A significant correlation between DAS28 values and all the LupusQoL domains in group A was found; only three domains correlated with SLEDAI-2k. Conclusions SLE-related joint involvement significantly influences disease-specific QoL. DAS28 better correlated with LupusQoL domains in comparison with SLEDAI-2k, confirming the need for specific musculoskeletal activity indices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available