ASSESSMENT OF FATIGUE IN A MONOCENTRIC ITALIAN COHORT OF PATIENTS AFFECTED BY SLE AND OTHER RHEUMATIC DISEASES (RDS) THROUGH VALIDATED QUESTIONNAIRES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PV172 / #761 Poster Topic: AS19 - Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Background/Purpose Fatigue is one of the most common and disabling symptoms which might impair quality of life (QoL) in patients affected by chronic diseases.[1] Previous data showed that 35-82% of patient with rheumatic diseases (RDs) reported fatigue.[2] Often, fatigue is associated with a perceived higher disease activity and it has been identified as one of the implicated factors in the failure to achieve the remission.[3] We aimed to assess fatigue in our cohort of SLE and other RDs patients using validated questionnaires, to evaluate any differences in fatigue compared with healthy subjects and between various RDs subgroups. These represents the preliminary results of the IDEA-FAST project that aims to identify novel, objective and reliable digital endpoints of fatigue, by using mobile digital technologies in patients affected by neurodegenerative disorders and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases Methods We conducted a cross-sectional observational monocentric study including patients with SLE, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS) and healthy volunteers (HV) between August 2023 and July 2024. Patients with a primary diagnosis of major sleep disorder and fibromyalgia were excluded. Fatigue was rated on a visual analog scale (fVAS:0-100 mm) and through FACIT-Fatigue and modified Mental Fatigue Scale (m-MFS). Additionally, all patients completed questionnaires investigating sleep quality (sqVAS and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale, MOS-SS), daily sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale, ESS), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item, GAD-2), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, PHQ-2), QoL (EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels, EQ-5D-5L) and social functioning (Social Functioning Questionnaires, SFQ). Results We enrolled 30 RA, 21 SLE, 14 pSS and 9 HV (Table 1). As expected SLE patients were younger and with a longer disease duration. A good construct validity was observed correlating fVAS scores with FACIT-Fatigue and m-MFS (rs:-0.81, p<0.001 and rs:0.42, p:0.002). Comparing the questionnaire scores RDs patients reported more fatigue, both physical and mental, and worst QoL and global health status (Table 2), however no differences between the different RDs subgroups regarding the questionnaires scores were observed except for m-MFS, showing a higher mental fatigue in patients with SLE+pSS than RA patients. The female patients reported higher fVAS scores (meaning greater fatigue) as compared to males (39.0 [20.0-60.0] vs 14.0 [0.0-35.0], p:0.0125), while no significant correlations were found between fVAS scores and age, disease duration and Charlson Comorbidity Index. In SLE and pSS subgroups no correlations with disease activity were found. Finally, fVAS correlated positively with sqVAS (rs:0.36, p:0.004), ESS (rs:0,28, p:0.022), MOS-SS (rs:0.38, p:0.050), GAD-2 (rs:0.45, p<0.001), PHQ-2 (rs:0,31, p:0.028), SFQ (rs:0.41, p:0.003) and negatively with EQ-5D-5L index value (rs:-0.61, p:0.003). This implies that as fatigue worsens, sleep quality, anxiety and depressive symptoms, social functioning, quality of life and global health status worsen. Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics Table 2. Questionnaire scores Conclusions patients affected by SLE and other RMDs reported worse fatigue and quality of life than HV. A greater fatigue appears associated with female sex as well as with sleep disturbances, anxiety symptoms, depression, poorer social functioning and lower QoL, without differences according to the RD diagnosis nor disease activity indices. Future perspectives include the implementation of the results with the questionnaire scores obtained during subsequent follow-up visits and the data derived from the digital devices used in the field of IDEA-FAST study to evaluate the data consistency. References: [1.] Huang CC. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2022;2022:1823-6. [2.] Overman CL. Clin Rheumatol 2016;35:409-15. [3.] Pollard LC. Rheumatology 2006;45(6):885-9.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».