4.5 Article

The Burden of Sarcoidosis Symptoms from a Patient Perspective

期刊

LUNG
卷 197, 期 2, 页码 155-161

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-019-00206-7

关键词

Fatigue; Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS); Sarcoidosis; Sarcoidosis-associated symptoms; Small fiber neuropathy (SFN); Small fiber neuropathy screenings list (SFNSL)

资金

  1. ild care foundation
  2. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, ZonMw [842002005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe clinical manifestations of sarcoidosis vary widely, depending on the intensity of the inflammation and the organ systems affected. Hence, sarcoidosis patients may suffer from a great variety of symptoms. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported burden of sarcoidosis patients in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, especially the prevalence of fatigue and small fiber neuropathy (SFN)-related symptoms, as well as differences in treatment strategies.MethodsA cross-sectional web-based anonymous survey about complaints was conducted among sarcoidosis patients. Patients were invited to take part through the sarcoidosis patient societies as well as through outpatient sarcoidosis clinics in these countries.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 1072 sarcoidosis patients (152 Danish, 532 German and 388 Dutch). Almost all patients reported having sarcoidosis-associated symptoms (organ-related as well as non-specific, non-organ related). Fatigue was reported by almost all respondents (90%), followed by pulmonary symptoms (72.4%). More than 50% of the respondents were being treated with prednisone, which was comparable in all three countries. In contrast, second- and third-line treatment differed substantially between Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.ConclusionSarcoidosis patients in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands present with similar self-reported symptoms, organ-related as well as non-specific, non-organ related. Fatigue (90%) and symptoms associated with SFN (86%) were highly prevalent in all three countries.

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

4.5
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