4.4 Article

Disease duration determines health-related quality of life in adult eosinophilic esophagitis patients

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 772-778

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.12323

关键词

burden; dysphagia; patient-reported outcome; quality of life; SF-36

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus characterized by relapsing symptoms of dysphagia. The quality of life (QoL) of EoE patients is impaired, but risk factors for impaired QoL have not been identified. The chronic nature of the disease, requiring multiple endoscopies and long-term treatments, and its social implications may be important factors underlying the impaired QoL of EoE patients. We aimed to determine which clinical factors influence the QoL in EoE patients. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively included 74 adult patients (age 40.3 +/- 13.6years, 23% female) diagnosed with EoE according to current guidelines. Patients filled out the SF-36 health-related QoL questionnaire and a questionnaire for assessing clinical data. Patients' SF-36 scores were compared with norm scores from a reference population of 1742 randomly selected subjects. Key Results In EoE patients, vitality (62.1 +/- 22.3 vs 68.6 +/- 19.3, p=0.015) and general health (64.4 +/- 24.2 vs 70.9 +/- 20.6, p=0.024) domains of QoL were decreased, the latter primarily in the 18-25year age group (50.1 +/- 30.5 vs 77.9 +/- 17.2, p=0.006). Disease duration is a risk factor for a low mental component summary score, as identified by univariate regression analysis (OR 1.064 (CI: 1.003-1.128), p=0.038). Conclusions & Inferences The QoL is particularly impaired in young adult EoE patients. Disease duration determines the mental QoL. This study offers additional insight into the impact of EoE on patients' lives and emphasizes the importance of early diagnosing and adequately treating EoE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据