Work situation, work ability and expectation of returning to work in patients with systemic autoimmune myopathies.

OBJECTIVES: To document the work situation, the work ability and the expectation of returning to work among adult patients with systemic autoimmune myopathies (SAMs), and to identify the factors associated with each of these outcomes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. The work situation (performing paid work vs out of work) was ascertained via a structured questionnaire. For those who were working, we applied the Work Ability Index (WAI; scale 7-49); and for those who were out of work, we applied the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy questionnaire (RTW-SE; scale 11-66). RESULTS: Of the 75 patients with SAMs included, 33 (44%) were doing paid work and 42 (56%) were out of work. The work situation was independently associated with physical function, assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). A 1-point increase in the HAQ-DI (scale 0-3) decreased the chance of doing paid work by 66% (95% CI: 0.16, 0.74; P = 0.007). Patients performing paid work had a mean WAI of 33.5 (6.9). The following variables were associated with a decrease in the WAI score in the regression model: female sex (-5.04), diabetes (-5.94), fibromyalgia (-6.40), fatigue (-4.51) and severe anxiety (-4.59). Among those out of work, the mean RTW-SE was 42.8 (12.4). Cutaneous manifestations and >12 years of education were associated with an average increase of 10.57 and 10.9 points, respectively, in the RTW-SE. A 1-point increase in the HAQ-DI decreased the RTW-SE by 4.69 points. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the poor work participation in a well-characterized sample of working-age patients with SAMs. Strategies to improve work-related outcomes in these patients are urgently needed.

Analysis of patient-physician discrepancy in global assessment of systemic autoimmune myopathy disease activity.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perception of disease activity (DA) between adult patients with systemic autoimmune myopathies (SAMs) and their physicians, and analyse possible sources of discordance. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 75 patients with SAMs. Patients and physicians rated the global DA on a 0-10 cm visual analogue scale. A discrepancy score was calculated by subtracting physician assessment from patient assessment. Three groups were defined: (I) no discrepancy: difference within -2.0 to +2.0; (II) negative discrepancy (ND): difference <-2.0 (patient underrated DA in relation to physcian); (III) positive discrepancy (PD): difference >+2.0 (patient overrated DA in relation to physician). Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of discordance. RESULTS: Discordance in patient-physician assessment of DA was found in 21 (28%) cases. ND was observed in 3 (4%), PD in 18 (24%), and no discrepancy in 54 (72%) assessments. Due to the small number, ND cases were excluded from the analysis. PD was associated with older age, personal history of depression, past joint involvement, higher MMT-8 and lower extramuscular DA. In the regression model, for each additional year of age, the chance of PD increases, on average, by 9% (OR 1.09; 95%CI 1.01-1.17, p=0.034). Personal history of depression increases the chance of PD by 829% (OR 9.29; 95%CI 1.52-56.89, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Almost 30% of patients had discordance in DA assessment from their physicians. The majority of them overrated their DA. These patients tend to be older and are more likely to have personal history of depression, past joint involvement, and milder disease.