Chinese version of the treatment of autoimmune bullous disease quality of life questionnaire: Reliability and validity

Background: Treatments for autoimmune blistering disease carry significant risks of medical complications and can affect the patient's quality of life. Recently, the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire was developed in Australia. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire in Chinese patients with autoimmune blistering diseases. Methods: The Chinese version of the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire was produced by forward-backward translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original English version. Autoimmune blistering disease patients recruited in the study self-administered the Chinese Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire, the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. Reliability of the Chinese Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest (days 0 and 7) methods. Validity was analyzed by face, content, construct, convergent and discriminant validity measures. Results: A total of 86 autoimmune blistering disease patients were recruited for the study. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.883 and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.871. Face and content validities were satisfactory. Convergent validity testing revealed correlation coefficients of 0.664 for the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life and Dermatology Life Quality Index and –0.577 for the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. With respect to discriminant validity, no significant differences were observed in the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life scores of men and women (t = 0.251, P = 0.802), inpatients and outpatients (t = 0.447, P = 0.656), patients on steroids and steroid-sparing medications (t = 0.672, P = 0.503) and patients with different autoimmune blistering disease subtypes (F = 0.030, P = 0.971). Limitations: Illiterate patients were excluded from the study. The patients were from a single hospital and most of their conditions were in a relatively stable status. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to measure treatment burden and to serve as an end point in clinical trials in Chinese autoimmune blistering disease patients.

Chinese version of the treatment of autoimmune bullous disease quality of life questionnaire: Reliability and validity

Background: Treatments for autoimmune blistering disease carry significant risks of medical complications and can affect the patient's quality of life. Recently, the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire was developed in Australia. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire in Chinese patients with autoimmune blistering diseases. Methods: The Chinese version of the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire was produced by forward-backward translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original English version. Autoimmune blistering disease patients recruited in the study self-administered the Chinese Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire, the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. Reliability of the Chinese Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest (days 0 and 7) methods. Validity was analyzed by face, content, construct, convergent and discriminant validity measures. Results: A total of 86 autoimmune blistering disease patients were recruited for the study. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.883 and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.871. Face and content validities were satisfactory. Convergent validity testing revealed correlation coefficients of 0.664 for the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life and Dermatology Life Quality Index and –0.577 for the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. With respect to discriminant validity, no significant differences were observed in the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life scores of men and women (t = 0.251, P = 0.802), inpatients and outpatients (t = 0.447, P = 0.656), patients on steroids and steroid-sparing medications (t = 0.672, P = 0.503) and patients with different autoimmune blistering disease subtypes (F = 0.030, P = 0.971). Limitations: Illiterate patients were excluded from the study. The patients were from a single hospital and most of their conditions were in a relatively stable status. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to measure treatment burden and to serve as an end point in clinical trials in Chinese autoimmune blistering disease patients.

Evaluation of the combination of BP180-NC16a enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and BP230 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid.

Background: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an acquired autoimmune subepidermal blistering disease characterized by circulating IgG autoantibodies directed against BP180 and BP230 hemidesmosomal proteins. Previous studies have demonstrated that antibodies against the NC16a domain of BP180 mediate BP pathogenesis, while antibodies against BP230 enhance the inflammatory response. Recently, commercial BP180-NC16a enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and BP230 ELISA kits were developed to detect anti-BP180 and anti-BP230 autoantibodies in human BP sera. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of BP180-NC16a ELISA and BP230 ELISA in the initial diagnosis of BP. Methods: Sera from 62 BP patients and 62 control subjects were tested by BP180-NC16a ELISA and BP230 ELISA and compared with findings from indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and immunoblotting (IB) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of these assays. Results: The sensitivities of BP180-NC16a ELISA and BP230 ELISA were 87.1% (54/62) and 56.5% (35/62), respectively, and the specificities of both were 100% (62/62). Using both ELISAs for diagnosis increased the sensitivity to 95.2% (59/62) and was statistically comparable with IB sensitivity. Conclusions: ELISA is a convenient, effective, and reliable method for serodiagnosis of BP, and combined use of BP180-NC16a ELISA and BP230 ELISA can increase the sensitivity of this diagnostic approach.

Accuracy of indirect immunofluorescence on sodium chloride-split skin in the differential diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita.

Background: Previous reports have shown that indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) performed on sodium chloride-split skin (SSS) is helpful to differentiate epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) from bullous pemphigoid (BP). Antibodies of BP may bind to the epidermal side of SSS, while antibodies of EBA bind to the dermal side. Aims: To determine the accuracy of IIF-SSS in the differential diagnosis of EBA and BP utilizing immunoblotting (IB) analysis. Methods: Sera from 78 patients, diagnosed with BP by clinical features, histopathology, and direct immunofluorescence (DIF), were assayed using IIF-SSS and IB. Results: Of the 43 serum samples with an epidermal reaction to IIF-SSS assay, 42 were recognized with BP antigens (180 kDa or 230 kDa). Of the 11 serum samples with a dermal reaction pattern, 7 were recognized with the 290 kDa antigen of EBA and 3 with sera bound BP antigens. Seven serum samples with epidermal and dermal combined staining, of which 5 of them reacted with BP antigens, 1 reacted with both BP and EBA antigens. One serum sample from each group showed a negative result by IB. Approximately 9.0% (7/78) of patients diagnosed with BP using regular methods were actually EBA. Conclusions: Epidermal reaction using the IIF-SSS assay highly correlated with the diagnosis of BP. However, dermal reactions correlated poorly with EBA, with some serum samples from BP patients binding to dermal-side antigens. In both epidermal and dermal stained sera using IIF-SSS, there was a possibility of BP and EBA. Differential diagnosis should be confirmed using IB, especially in cases of dermal and double staining patterns assayed using IIF-SSS.