Objectives As a rare and heterogeneous disease, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) represents a challenge. Herein, we aimed to unravel potential pitfalls including correct referral diagnosis, distinction from other connective tissue diseases (CTD) and treatment modalities. Methods We characterised the MCTD cohort at our tertiary referral centre. All patients were evaluated for fulfilment of classification criteria of various CTDs. SLEDAI-2 K and EUSTAR-AI were used in accordance with previous research to evaluate disease activity and treatment response. Results Out of 85 patients initially referred as MCTD, only one-third (33/85, 39%) fulfilled the diagnostic MCTD criteria and the other patients had undifferentiated CTD (16/85, 19%), non-MCTD overlap syndromes (11/85, 13%) and other rheumatic diseases. In our final cohort of 33 MCTD patients, 16 (48%) also met the diagnostic criteria of systemic sclerosis, 13 (39%) these of systemic lupus erythematosus, 6 (18%) these of rheumatoid arthritis and 3 (9%) these of primary myositis. Management of MCTD required immunomodulating combination therapy in most cases (15/28, 54%), whereas monotherapy was less frequent (10/28, 36%), and only a few (3/28, 11%) remained without immune modulators until the end of the follow-up period. Treatment led to a significant decline in disease activity. Conclusions Our study showed a high risk for misdiagnosis for patients with MCTD. As a multi-organ disease, MCTD required prolonged immunomodulating therapy to achieve remission. The establishment of an international registry with longitudinal data from observational multi-centre cohorts might represent a first step to address the many unmet needs of MCTD. Key Points• This cohort study aimed to identify challenges in the highly complex management of MCTD.• Clinical presentation of MCTD significantly overlaps with that of other CTDs, leading to a high risk of misdiagnosis.• Manifestations of MCTD are highly variable and potentially life-threatening, requiring continued immunomodulating treatment in most cases.• A composite score based on SLEDAI-2 K and EUSTAR-AI measures could represent an easy applicable tool to monitor disease activity and treatment response.
ObjectivesPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important for clinical practice and research. Given the high unmet need, our aim was to develop a comprehensive PROM for systemic sclerosis (SSc), jointly with patient experts.MethodsThis European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)-endorsed project involved 11 European SSc centres. Relevant health dimensions were chosen and prioritised by patients. The resulting Systemic Sclerosis Impact of Disease (ScleroID) questionnaire was subsequently weighted and validated by Outcome Measures in Rheumatology criteria in an observational cohort study, cross-sectionally and longitudinally. As comparators, SSc-Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EuroQol Five Dimensional (EQ-5D), Short Form-36 (SF-36) were included.ResultsInitially, 17 health dimensions were selected and prioritised. The top 10 health dimensions were selected for the ScleroID questionnaire. Importantly, Raynaud’s phenomenon, impaired hand function, pain and fatigue had the highest patient-reported disease impact. The validation cohort study included 472 patients with a baseline visit, from which 109 had a test–retest reliability visit and 113 had a follow-up visit (85% female, 38% diffuse SSc, mean age 58 years, mean disease duration 9 years). The total ScleroID score showed strong Pearson correlation coefficients with comparators (SSc-HAQ, 0.73; Patient’s global assessment, Visual Analogue Scale 0.77; HAQ-Disability Index, 0.62; SF-36 physical score, −0.62; each p<0.001). The internal consistency was strong: Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87, similar to SSc-HAQ (0.88) and higher than EQ-5D (0.77). The ScleroID had excellent reliability and good sensitivity to change, superior to all comparators (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.84; standardised response mean 0.57).ConclusionsWe have developed and validated the EULAR ScleroID, which is a novel, brief, disease-specific, patient-derived, disease impact PROM, suitable for research and clinical use in SSc.
Objective. To evaluate the feasibility, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and to analyse its model structure in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods. In this study, 316 SSc patients were included; of these, 159 participated in the responsiveness analysis. Psychometric properties were tested in analogy to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter and an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the structure of HADS. Results. The HADS showed adequate feasibility, validity, reliability, and responsiveness to clinically relevant worsening of the disease. For our population of SSc patients, the HADS model with two sub-scales, HADS-A and HADS-D, and a general scale HADS-S, measuring anxiety, depression, and distress, respectively, was most appropriate. The rates of anxiety, depression, mixed anxiety-depressive disorder (MADD) and distress identified by HADS were 32.2%, 25.9%, 18.5%, and 49.5%, respectively, in our cohort. Conclusion. The psychometric properties of the HADS make it useful for screening in SSc, where anxiety, depression, MADD, and distress represent a significant burden to patients. Patients and methods Data collection and populationConsecutive patients with all questionnaire data available and fulfilling the ACR/EULAR 2013 classification criteria for SSc (8), yearly followed up longitudinally (2013-2020) in our clinic were included in the cross-sectional/ longitudinal analyses, respectively:a) The responsiveness analysis involved patients, in which we recorded a worsening or improvement of the disease in the previous 12±3 months. Worsening of disease was defined either as occurrence of any of the following
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.