ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that skin disease in dermatomyositis (DM) is best assessed using the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI). Although the CDASI has been validated for use by dermatologists, it has not been validated for use by other physicians such as rheumatologists and neurologists, who also manage patients with DM and assess skin activity in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the CDASI among dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists. METHODS: Fifteen patients with cutaneous DM were assessed using the CDASI and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) by five dermatologists, five rheumatologists and five neurologists. RESULTS: The mean CDASI activity scores for dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists were 21·0, 21·8 and 20·8, respectively. These mean scores were not different among the specialists. The CDASI damage score means for dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists were 5·3, 7·0 and 4·8, respectively. The mean scores between dermatologists and rheumatologists were significantly different, but the means between dermatologists and neurologists were not. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for interrater reliability for CDASI activity and damage were good to excellent for dermatologists and rheumatologists, and moderate to excellent for neurologists. The ICCs for intrarater reliability for CDASI activity and damage were excellent for dermatologists and rheumatologists and moderate to excellent for neurologists. The PGA displayed lower interrater and intrarater reliability relative to the CDASI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the reliability of the CDASI when used by dermatologists and rheumatologists. The data for its use by neurologists were not as robust.
Subject(s)
Dermatologists , Dermatomyositis/diagnosis , Neurologists , Rheumatologists , Severity of Illness Index , Analysis of Variance , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Ocular changes during treatment with amiodarone are almost universal but are rarely serious. In this article we describe three patients from a single electrophysiology practice in whom optic neuropathy developed during treatment with amiodarone. All three patients were more than 65 years of age. The doses of amiodarone ranged from 100 to 400 mg/day, and the time intervals between the initiation of the amiodarone therapy and the appearance of first symptoms of optic neuropathy were 5 to 19 months. Two patients had bilateral involvement, and one had only unilateral involvement. Whether this result was due solely to amiodarone therapy, to the underlying poor health of these patients, or to the combination of these two factors is uncertain. These findings prompt us to recommend that all patients who receive amiodarone undergo complete ophthalmologic examinations, including careful evaluation of the ocular fundus regularly during such therapy. No randomized study had been undertaken to determine the true incidence of complications associated with this medication.
