4.6 Article

The burden of narcolepsy with cataplexy: How disease history and clinical features influence socio-economic outcomes

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 1293-1300

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2012.08.002

关键词

Narcolepsy with cataplexy; Excessive daytime sleepiness; Disease history; Quality of life; Economic costs; Work disability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate in narcolepsy with cataplexy (NC) patients of working age (18-65 years) the influence of age at onset, age at diagnosis and clinical features on socio-occupational conditions, disease-related economic burden, and quality of life. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients underwent a semistructured interview on socio-occupational aspects, NC-related direct and indirect costs, and NC history. Questionnaires were used to evaluate excessive daytime sleepiness, cataplexy, depressive symptoms, and quality of life. Results: NC patients (51 males, mean age 37 +/- 11.5 years) had educational and occupational levels similar to those of the Italian population of the same age range, but married less often, especially if NC onset occurred at a young age. Total annual NC-related costs were (sic)9814 +/- 10,372 per patient. Multivariate analyses showed that patients with NC onset before the age of 30 years had a higher educational level, married less frequently, and were less frequently unemployed or inactive (retired, housewife). Patients diagnosed before the age of 30 years were less frequently unemployed or inactive, had fewer work changes, and had a better general health perception. Irresistible sleepiness was associated with work absences and higher indirect costs. Depressive symptoms were strongly associated with lower quality-of-life scores. Conclusions: NC age at onset and at diagnosis modulates the disease-related burden. A diagnosis at a young age could improve patients' occupational prognosis, and their general health perception. (C) 2012 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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