4.7 Article

Predictors of QOL in Patients with Alopecia Areata

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 142, 期 10, 页码 2646-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2022.02.019

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, United States
  2. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the severity of alopecia areata (AA) is often determined by the extent of scalp hair loss, its impact on quality of life (QOL) can also be a defining factor. This study found that patients' perception of disease severity, as well as eyelash and eyebrow involvement, were significant predictors of diminished QOL.
Although alopecia areata (AA) severity is often defined by the degree of scalp hair loss, its impact on QOL can also be a defining measure of severity. In this cross-sectional study (AA Disease Specific Program), 259 patients were surveyed for demographics, AA illness characteristics, QOL (Skindex-16 AA), and daily impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment). The association between patient demographics and illness variables, the Skindex-16 AA scores, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores were analyzed using regression analyses. The mean age of patients was 39 years (51% female). Self-reported severity of current AA was rated as mild (21%), moderate (54%), and severe (25%). The highest impairment was observed for the Skindex-16 AA emotions and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment daily activity performance scores. Although the degree of scalp hair loss (physician Severity of Alopecia Tool score) was not predictive of QOL, patients' self-report of moderate or severe disease, sex (females more impacted), and eyebrow and eyelash involvement were predictors of diminished QOL, consistently and incrementally. The present results suggest patients' perception of severity as well as the presence of eyelash and eyebrow hair loss are also impactful and should be considered in defining the severity of disease.

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

4.7
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