Introduction The objective was to develop a questionnaire that can be used to calculate a score reflecting the impact of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the patients' perspective: the PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire. Methods Twelve patient research partners identified important domains (areas of health); 139 patients prioritised them according to importance. Numeric rating scale (NRS) questions were developed, one for each domain. To combine the domains into a single score, relative weights were determined based on the relative importance given by 474 patients with PsA. An international cross-sectional and longitudinal validation study was performed in 13 countries to examine correlations of the PsAID score with other PsA or generic disease measures. Test-retest reliability and responsiveness (3 months after a treatment change) were examined in two subsets of patients. Results Two PsAID questionnaires were developed with both physical and psychological domains: one for clinical practice (12 domains of health) and one for clinical trials (nine domains). Pain, fatigue and skin problems had the highest relative importance. The PsAID scores correlated well with patient global assessment (N=474, Spearman r=0.82-0.84), reliability was high in stable patients (N=88, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.94-0.95), and sensitivity to change was also acceptable (N=71, standardised response mean=0.90-0.91). Conclusions A questionnaire to assess the impact of PsA on patients' lives has been developed and validated. Two versions of the questionnaire are available, one for clinical practice (PsAID-12) and one for clinical trials (PsAID-9). The PsAID questionnaires should allow better assessment of the patient's perspective in PsA. Further validation is needed
Introduction
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is characterized by frequent neuropsychiatric involvement, which includes cognitive impairment (CI). We aimed at assessing CI in a cohort of Italian SLE patients by using a wide range of neurocognitive tests specifically designed to evaluate the fronto-subcortical dysfunction. Furthermore, we aimed at testing whether CI in SLE is associated with serum autoantibodies, disease activity and chronic damage.
Methods
Fifty-eight consecutive patients were enrolled. Study protocol included data collection, evaluation of serum levels of ANA, anti-dsDNA, anti-cardiolipin, anti-β
2
-glycoprotein I, anti-P ribosomal, anti-endothelial cell, and anti-Nedd5 antibodies. SLEDAI-2000 and SLICC were used to assess disease activity and chronic damage. Patients were administered a test battery specifically designed to detect fronto-subcortical dysfunction across five domains: memory, attention, abstract reasoning, executive function and visuospatial function. For each patient, the raw scores from each test were compared with published norms, then transformed into Z scores (deviation from normal mean), and finally summed in the Global Cognitive Dysfunction score (GCDs).
Results
Nineteen percent of patients had mild GCDs impairment (GCDs 2–3), 7% moderate (GCDs 4–5) and 5% severe (GCDs≥6). The visuospatial domain was the most compromised (MDZs = −0.89±1.23). Anti-cardiolipin IgM levels were associated with visuospatial domain impairment (r = 0.331, P = 0.005). SLEDAI correlated with GCDs, and attentional and executive domains; SLICC correlated with GCDs, and with visuospatial and attentional domains impairment.
Conclusions
Anti-phospholipids, disease activity, and chronic damage are associated with cognitive dysfunction in SLE. The use of a wide spectrum of tests allowed for a better selection of the relevant factors involved in SLE cognitive dysfunction, and standardized neuropsychological testing methods should be used for routine assessment of SLE patients.
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.