Journal Information
Vol. 20. Issue 2.
Pages 59-66 (February 2024)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
361
Vol. 20. Issue 2.
Pages 59-66 (February 2024)
Original article
Full text access
Quality of life of patients with rheumatic diseases
Calidad de vida de los pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas
Visits
361
Lourdes Villalobos-Sáncheza,
Corresponding author
, Boris Blanco-Cáceresa,b, Javier Bachiller-Corrala,b, María Teresa Rodríguez-Serranoa, Mónica Vázquez-Díaza, Pablo Lázaro y de Mercadoc
a Department of Rheumatology, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
b Universidad de Alcalá, Facultad de Medicina, Madrid, Spain
c Independent Health Services Researcher, Madrid, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (5)
Table 1. Description of the sample: sociodemographic variables.
Table 2. Description of the sample: clinical variables and perceived state of health.
Table 3. Number of illnesses or long-term health problems in the last twelve months diagnosed by a doctor. Differences between RS-RyCUH patients and the general population.
Table 4. Population over 18 years of age reporting a health problem in each of the dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L in SR-HURyC patients, and in the general Spanish population.
Table 5. Comparison of the visual analog scale and the EQ-Index of the EQ-5D-5L in the SR-HURyC patients, with the general Spanish adult population, according to gender and age.
Show moreShow less
Additional material (1)
Abstract
Objective

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important indicator of population health and can measure the impact of medical actions. The main objective of this study was to determine the HRQoL of patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) and compare it with that of the general population.

Methods

Observational, cross-sectional, single-center study, with consecutive inclusion of outpatients over 18 years of age seen at a Rheumatology hospital-based outpatient clinic in Madrid. Sociodemographic, clinical variables and HRQoL were recorded. HRQoL was measured with the 5-dimension, 5-level EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L), which includes the EQ-Index (0–1 scale) and a visual analog scale (VAS, 0–100 scale). A descriptive analysis and a comparison with the HRQoL of the Spanish general population were performed.

Results

1144 patients were included, 820 (71.68%) women, with a mean age of 56.1 years (range 18–95), of whom 241 (25.44%) were new patients. In patients with RD, the HRQoL measured with the EQ-Index and with the VAS, was 0.186 and 12 points lower, respectively, than in the general population. The decrease in HRQoL affected the 5 health dimensions, especially “pain/discomfort”, followed by “daily activities” and “mobility”. This reduction in HRQoL was observed in both men and women, and in all age ranges, although it was greater between 18 and 65 years of age. The reduction in HRQoL affected all RD subtypes, especially the “peripheral and axial mechanical pathology” and the “soft tissue pathology” group.

Conclusions

Patients with rheumatic diseases report worse HRQoL when compared to the general population in all dimensions of HRQoL.

Keywords:
Rheumatic diseases
Quality of life
Comorbidities in rheumatic diseases
EuroQoL
Abbreviations:
BMI
CRF
DB
ENSE
EQ-5D-5L
EQ-Index
HRQoL
IQR
MR
NSI
RD
RS-RyCUH
SD
VAS
Resumen
Objetivo

La calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CVRS) se considera un indicador importante para valorar el estado de salud poblacional y medir el impacto de las actuaciones médicas. El principal objetivo de este estudio es conocer la CVRS de los pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas (RD, por sus siglas en inglés) y compararla con la población general.

Métodos

Estudio observacional, transversal, unicéntrico, con inclusión consecutiva de pacientes ambulatorios mayores de 18 años atendidos en la consulta hospitalaria de reumatología. Se recogieron variables sociodemográficas, clínicas y CVRS medida con el EuroQoL de 5 dimensiones y 5 niveles (EQ-5D-5L) que incluye el EQ-Índex (escala 0-1) y una escala visual analógica (EVA, escala 0-100). Se realizó un análisis descriptico y una comparación con la población española según la Encuesta Nacional de Salud.

Resultados

Se han incluido 1.144 pacientes, 820 (71,68%) mujeres, con edad media de 56,1 años (rango 18-95), de los que 241 (25,44%) eran pacientes nuevos. En los pacientes con RD, la CVRS medida con el EQ-Index y con la EVA, fue de 0,186 y 12 puntos menor, respectivamente, que en la población general. La CVRS afectó a las 5 dimensiones de salud, especialmente a «dolor/malestar», seguida de «actividades cotidianas» y «movilidad». Esta reducción de la CVRS se mantuvo tanto en varones y mujeres, y en todos los segmentos de edad, aunque fue mayor entre los 18 y 65 años. La reducción de CVRS afectó a todos los subtipos de RD, especialmente a la «Enfermedad mecánica periférica y axial» y al grupo de «Enfermedad de tejidos blandos».

Conclusiones

Los pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas declaran peor CVRS en comparación a la población general en todas las dimensiones de la CVRS.

Palabras clave:
Enfermedades reumáticas
Calidad de vida
Comorbilidades en enfermedades reumáticas
EuroQoL
Full Text
Introduction

Health systems have the mission of improving the health of the population they serve, which implies improving the survival and quality of life of patients. For this reason, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a key indicator to measure health outcomes1 and to describe the health situation in specific populations, including patients with rheumatic diseases (RD).2–4

HRQoL has generated increasing interest in recent years, as indicated by the increase in publications on the subject.5 There is no consensus regarding the definition, but there is agreement on its multidimensional and subjective nature.6 In a stratification pyramid of the different health measurement systems, HRQoL would be at the apex, since it is capable of offering morbidity and mortality data and a vision of the patient in the optimal death-function continuum.5

The 5-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D) is one of the most widely used generic measurement instruments in patients with chronic diseases, including patients with RD,7 and has been validated in multiple countries, including Spain.8 The EQ-5D measures five dimensions of health (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). Since the EQ-5D offers a quantitative result of the individual's perception of their health status, it allows comparison of HRQoL between patients, diseases, or with the general population.9 The 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) assesses each dimension with five response levels (1–5) and also has a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (worst state of health imaginable) to 100 (best self-perceived state of health). The EQ-Index, calculated with the levels of the dimensions, ranges from 1 (perfect health) to 0 (a state of health equivalent to death).8,9

RD are among the most common chronic diseases, with a high disease burden.10 In Spain, the prevalence of RD is 22.6% in the general population,11 which implies a large use of resources in primary and specialized care. Therapeutic outcome assessments in Rheumatology are usually based on levels of activity measured with disease-specific tools, but different studies show discrepancies between doctors’ perceptions of HRQoL and information referred by the patient.12–14 The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proposes maximizing the HRQoL of patients as the main objective,15 but in usual clinical practice it is not considered a primary health outcome. For these reasons, this project was developed, the objective of which was to describe the HRQoL of patients seen in the Rheumatology Department of the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital (RS-RyCUH) and to compare their HRQoL with that of the general population.

Methods

Observational, cross-sectional study, with data obtained from the medical record (MR) and questionnaires completed by the patient. The study subjects were patients who attended the RS-RyCUH clinic, both as new patients and for follow-up.

Inclusion criteria

Age>18 years, without communication problems and who agreed to participate in the study by signing a written informed consent. The patients were included consecutively.

The case report form (CRF) included sociodemographic variables (civil status, cohabitation, educational level, employment situation, identification of the person who contributed the most income to the household, social class, self-perceived health status, comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), smoking habit, and physical activity) used by the Ministry of Health and the National Statistics Institute (NSI)16,17 in their population health surveys. Likewise, the CRF asked the patients if they had had any other diseases diagnosed by a doctor in the last 12 months, from a list of 32 diseases. To explore alcohol consumption, the AUDIT-C questionnaire18,19 was used. To measure the degree of health literacy, the 16-item European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16) validated in Spain20 was used. The instrument for measuring HRQoL was the EQ-5D-5L, used in the Spanish National Health Survey (ENSE) 2011–2012,16,17,21 which was the last ENSE that measured HRQoL in adults.

Based on the ICD-10 classification of “diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue”, seven diagnostic categories were established: peripheral and axial mechanical pathology; soft tissue pathology; neuropathies; metabolic pathology; infectious pathology; inflammatory and microcrystalline arthropathies; and vasculitis-connective tissue diseases. Each of these categories was subdivided into their corresponding diagnostic subcategories.22 As some patients could have more than one rheumatic disease, the variables “main diagnosis” and “secondary diagnosis” were created with the same category structure. The diagnosis, in turn, was classified as confirmed or suspected. The doctor filled out a database (DB) with information from the MR.

Sample size

To obtain a precision of 3% in the categorical variables, with the assumption of maximum indeterminacy (p=q=0.5), 1056 patients would have been necessary (α=0.05; β=0.8). The mean VAS of the EQ-5D-5L in the ENSE was 77.9 (standard deviation (SD)=18.6).21 If in the RS-RyCUH, the VAS obtained had a variance similar to that obtained in a study carried out in Portugal (mean: 60.7; SD=19.3),23 904 patients would be necessary to find a difference of 2.5 points between the hospital sample and the general population. For these reasons, a sample size with sufficient power and statistical precision of around 1000 patients was considered.

Data collection

The CRF draft version was tested in a pilot study with 5 patients, after which the final CRF version was prepared in paper format. Trained personnel (auxillary nurses) assisted patients with the CRF when required. The information collected through the CRF and the MR was entered in the DB.

Statistical analysis

For the descriptive analysis, categorical variables were described as proportions (%). To describe the continuous variables, the normality of their distribution was first verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. For continuous variables with a normal distribution, the mean and SD were used. For continuous variables without a normal distribution, the median and interquartile range (IQR) were used. To fully illustrate the distribution of non-normally distributed continuous variables, the mean and SD were also shown.

HRQoL was described using the categorical and continuous EQ-5D-5L variables. The five categorical variables included the proportion of patients who reported a problem in each of the 5-dimensions of the EQ-5D-5, and the continuous variables were the VAS and the EQ-Index.24

As the VAS and EQ-Index did not have a normal distribution, the study of univariate associations of the VAS and EQ-Index with gender and age groups was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test (two samples), or the Kruskal–Wallis test (more than two samples). Finally, the patients’ HRQoL was compared with the HRQoL of the Spanish adult population according to the ENSE,21 and between the subgroups for which information was available. In this comparison, the t-test was used for two independent samples, since the ENSE data only included the number, mean, and SD.

The contrasts were made with two tails and a p<0.05 was considered a statistically significant association. Data analysis was performed using the SPSS statistical package (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

Ethical aspects

The patient was informed that their responses would be anonymized. The patients who agreed to participate signed the written informed consent and completed the CRF. The anonymized data were included in the DB and were processed with the security measures established in the Data Protection Law.25 The researchers preserved the confidentiality of the data as determined by the Law on Patient Autonomy, Clinical Information and Documentation.26 The research protocol was approved by the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital ethics and clinical research committee (Code 072-20).

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ResultsSociodemographic characteristics

From January 2020 to December 2021, 1144 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 56.10 years, of whom 820 (71.68%) were women. The most frequent civil status was married (51.71%) with a predominance of patients with university or equivalent studies (36.00%). The health literacy questionnaire was completed by 931 patients, of which 34.8% had a problematic or inadequate health literacy level. Regarding employment situation, the group that works for their own account or for others (45.77%) predominated, and in 51.75% of households, the person who contributed the highest income was the patient. The questionnaire on social class (defined according to the professional group to which the person who contributes the most income to the household belongs) was answered by 974 patients, and the majority (24.02%) belonged to class V (qualified worker) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Description of the sample: sociodemographic variables.

Variable  n  Categories  n 
Gender1144Woman  820  71.68 
Man  324  28.32 
Age (years)a114418–24  36  3.15 
25–34  74  6.47 
35–44  167  14.60 
45–54  255  22.29 
55–64  277  24.21 
65–74  182  15.91 
75–84  121  10.58 
85+  32  2.80 
Country of birth1139Spain  953  83.67 
Another country  186  16.33 
City of residence1135Madrid  1046  92.16 
Another city  89  7.84 
Civil status11411. Married  590  51.71 
2. Single  301  26.38 
3. Widowed  106  9.29 
4. Separated  94  8.24 
6. Divorced  40  3.51 
7. DK/NA  10  0.88 
Living situation11411. Alone  190  16.65 
2. Alone with your child(ren)  120  10.52 
3. With your spouse or partner  346  30.32 
4. With your spouse or partner with children  299  26.21 
5. With father and/or mother  95  8.33 
6. With spouse/partner and children and other people  50  4.38 
7. Other situation  38  3.33 
8. DK/NA  0.26 
Educational level11251. Illiterate  0.80 
2. Incomplete primary education  83  7.38 
3. Complete primary education  154  13.69 
4. First stage secondary education  116  10.31 
5. High school studies, professional education  357  31.73 
6. University studies or equivalent  405  36.00 
7. DK/NA  0.09 
Employment situation11231. Work (self-employed or employed by someone else)  514  45.77 
2. Retired or pensioner (has previously worked)  285  25.38 
3. Pensioner (has not previously worked)  67  5.97 
4. Unemployed but worked previously  99  8.82 
5. Unemployed and looking for first job  0.45 
6. Student  31  2.76 
7. Unpaid domestic work  58  5.16 
8. Other situation  60  5.34 
9. DK/NA  0.36 
Person who contributes the highest income to the household11171. Patient  578  51.75 
2. Another person  488  43.69 
3. DK/NA  51  4.57 
Social class (professional group to which the person who contributes the most income to the household belongs or belonged)974I. Director>10 employees and associated professional university degree  132  13.55 
II. Director<10 employees and profession associated with a university degree. Athletes, artists  56  5.75 
III. Intermediate occupations and self-employed workers  129  13.24 
IV. Supervisor and worker in skilled technical occupations  194  19.92 
V. Skilled worker  234  24.02 
VI. Unskilled worker  88  9.03 
DK/NA  141  14.48 
Smoking1099Daily smoker  156  14.19 
Nondaily smoker  45  4.09 
Does not currently smoke, but has smoked before  396  36.03 
Do not smoke and has not ever smoked regularly  502  45.68 
Alcohol (risk consumption)1083Yes  0.00 
No  1.083  100.00 
Other addictions1057Yes  0.76 
No  1.049  99.24 
Physical activity1097Sedentary activity (reading, watching television, etc.)  264  24.07 
Occasional physical or sports activity  580  52.87 
Physical or sports activity several times a month  116  10.57 
Physical activity or sport several times a week  137  12.49 
Body mass index (BMI)1019Underweight (BMI<18.5)  36  3.53 
Normal weight (BMI18.5 and <25)  420  41.22 
Overweight (BMI25 and <30)  375  36.80 
Obesity (BMI>30)  188  18.45 

DK/NA: don’t know/no answer.

a

Mean (years): 56.10; standard deviation: 15.87; minimum: 18.36; maximum: 95.29.

Regarding lifestyle habits, 14.19% of the patients were smokers and no patients had risky consumption of alcohol. The predominant degree of physical activity was “occasional physical or sports activity” (52.87%), followed by “sedentary activity” (24.07%). The BMI could be calculated in 1019 patients, of whom 36.80% were overweight and 18.45% were obese (Table 1).

Diagnosis

A quarter of the patients attended the consultation for the first time, and the rest went for a follow-up visit. All patients had a primary diagnosis and 507 (44.32%) patients had a secondary diagnosis.

The most frequent main diagnosis was inflammatory and microcrystalline arthropathies (37.33%), followed by peripheral and axial mechanical pathology (23.16%) and connective tissue diseases and vasculitis (20.02%). In 95.1% of the patients, the main diagnosis was confirmed. The most frequent secondary diagnosis was diseases in the peripheral and axial mechanical pathology group (50.1%), followed by the soft tissue pathology group (24.46%); 96.41% of the secondary diagnoses were confirmed (Table 2).

Table 2.

Description of the sample: clinical variables and perceived state of health.

Variable  n  Categories  n 
Type of medical consultation1144New  291  25.44 
Follow-up  853  74.56 
Main diagnosis11441. Peripheral and axial mechanical pathology  265  23.16 
2. Soft tissue pathology  104  9.09 
3. Neuropathies  17  1.49 
4. Metabolic pathology  101  8.83 
5. Infectious pathology  0.09 
6. Inflammatory and microcrystalline arthropathies  427  37.33 
7. Connective tissue disorders and Vasculitis  229  20.02 
Main diagnostic status1144Confirmed  1088  95.10 
Suspected  56  4.90 
Secondary diagnosis5071. Peripheral and axial mechanical pathology  254  50.10 
2. Soft tissue pathology  124  24.46 
3. Neuropathies  22  4.34 
4. Metabolic pathology  23  4.54 
5. Infectious pathology  0.39 
6. Inflammatory and microcrystalline arthropathies  31  6.11 
7. Connective tissue disorders and vasculitis  51  10.06 
Secondary diagnostic status501Confirmed  483  96.41 
Suspected  18  3.59 
Perceived state of health in the last 12 months1134Very good  52  4.59 
Good  372  32.80 
Fair  477  42.06 
Bad  183  16.14 
Very bad  50  4.41 
Perceived state of health and comorbidities

With respect to perceived state of health in the last 12 months, 37.39% of patients reported it was good or very good, 42.06% fair, and 20.55% bad or very bad (Table 2).

The three most frequent diseases were rheumatological: chronic back pain (lumbar) (45.80%); osteoarthritis (excluding arthritis) (38.46%); and chronic back pain (cervical) (35.84%). After these, the most frequent were high cholesterol (27.27%) and high blood pressure (26.66%) (Supplementary Table 1). A minority of patients, 6.52%, stated they did not suffer from any of the 32 diseases included in the questionnaire (assuming those who answered no or did not respond did not suffer from the disease), 10.10% declared they had one, 13.76%, two, 69.62%, three or more, and 44.06% declared having five or more diseases. The median number of diseases diagnosed by a doctor per patient in the previous year was 4 (IQR: 2–6) (Supplementary Table 2). The number of illnesses per patient was significantly higher in RS-RyCUH patients than in the general population (Table 3).

Table 3.

Number of illnesses or long-term health problems in the last twelve months diagnosed by a doctor. Differences between RS-RyCUH patients and the general population.

Number of diseasesa  RS-RyCUH (n=1.119)General population (ENSE) (n=20.587)Difference in cumulative %  p** 
  n  % accumulated  n  % accumulated     
73  6.52  6.52  5553  26.97  26.97  20.45  0.000 
113  10.10  16.62  3982  19.34  46.32  29.69  0.000 
154  13.76  30.38  2821  13.70  60.02  29.63  0.000 
147  13.14  43.52  2077  10.09  70.11  26.59  0.000 
139  12.42  55.94  1675  8.14  78.24  22.30  0.000 
118  10.55  66.49  1197  5.81  84.06  17.57  0.000 
>5  375  33.51  –  3282  15.94  –  –  – 

RS-RyCUH: Rheumatology Service of the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital; ENSE: National Health Survey of Spain 2011–2012.

a

In SR-RyCUH patients it is the number of additional diseases in addition to rheumatic disease.

**

Pearson Chi-square.

Health-related quality of life: the EQ-5D-5L

Over half of the patients, 52.50%, declared having a problem in the “mobility” dimension of the EQ-5D-5L, 25.16% in “self-care”, 51.38% in “daily activities”, 84.08% in “pain/discomfort” and 52.75% in “anxiety/depression” (Supplementary Table 3). The proportion of patients with problems in each of the dimensions was higher than in the general Spanish population (Table 4).

Table 4.

Population over 18 years of age reporting a health problem in each of the dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L in SR-HURyC patients, and in the general Spanish population.

Dimension  Ambit  n  Subjects who declare a problemComparison with RS-RyCUH
      n  Difference (%)  p* 
MobilityRS-RyCUH  1122  589  52.50  38.220.000
Spanish general population  20,587  2940  14.28 
Self-careRS-RyCUH  1097  276  25.16  18.940.000
Spanish general population  20,587  1281  6.22 
Usual activitiesRS-RyCUH  1121  576  51.38  40.240.000
Spanish general population  20,587  2293  11.14 
Pain/discomfortRS-RyCUH  1131  951  84.08  58.630.000
Spanish general population  20,587  5239  25.45 
Anxiety/depressionRS-RyCUH  1090  575  52.75  37.720.000
Spanish general population  20,587  3094  15.03 

RS-RyCUH: Rheumatology Service of the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital.

Data of the Spanish general population: National Health Survey of Spain 2011–2012.

*

Pearson's Chi-square.

The VAS had a mean of 65.26 (SD: 21.54), and a median of 70 (IQR: 50–80). The VAS was higher in men (mean 69.31) than in women (mean 63.60) (p=0.000; Mann–Whitney U test), and lower with increasing age. For example, in patients aged 18–24 years old it was 78.31, and in subjects over 85 years old it was 48.55 (p=0.000; Kruskal–Wallis test). The mean VAS of the patients (65.26) was lower than that of the general population (77.53) (p=0.000), and also when compared by gender and age, except in those>85 years of age, in which the 6-point difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.162) probably due to the small number of patients of this age (Table 5).

Table 5.

Comparison of the visual analog scale and the EQ-Index of the EQ-5D-5L in the SR-HURyC patients, with the general Spanish adult population, according to gender and age.

Variable  Category  RS-RyCUH patientsSpanish adult general population (ENSE)Mean differences  p* 
    n  VASn  VAS   
      Mean  S.D.    Media  S.D.     
GenderMan  307  69.31  19.01  9412  79.44  17.12  −10.13  0.000 
Women  750  63.60  22.29  11,175  75.72  19.69  −12.12  0.000 
Age (years)18–24  36  78.31  17.04  1236  88.16  12.12  −9.85  0.001 
25–34  72  77.97  18.80  2757  85.37  13.51  −7.40  0.001 
35–44  154  69.18  20.48  3951  81.41  15.74  −12.23  0.000 
45–54  237  66.74  20.84  3574  77.17  17.44  −10.43  0.000 
55–64  260  62.37  20.75  3173  73.16  18.58  −10.79  0.000 
65–74  157  64.62  20.26  2731  69.82  19.08  −5.20  0.002 
75–84  112  56.26  22.98  2350  62.57  20.69  −6.31  0.005 
85+  29  48.55  22.15  815  54.55  22.61  −6.00  0.162 
Total1.057  65.26  21.54  20,587  77.53  18.60  −12.27  0.000 
Variable  Category  n  EQ-Indexn  EQ-IndexMean differences  p* 
      Mean  S.D.    Mean  S.D.     
GenderMan  304  0.788  0.184  9412  0.938  0.138  −0.150  0.000 
Women  755  0.703  0.236  11,175  0.892  0.159  −0.189  0.000 
Age (years)18–24  36  0.858  0.143  1236  0.976  0.098  −0.117  0.000 
25–34  73  0.818  0.178  2757  0.970  0.109  −0.152  0.000 
35–44  164  0.746  0.203  3951  0.950  0.127  −0.204  0.000 
45–54  241  0.740  0.214  3574  0.928  0.141  −0.188  0.000 
55–64  257  0.698  0.227  3173  0.899  0.150  −0.201  0.000 
65–74  158  0.756  0.213  2731  0.865  0.154  −0.109  0.000 
75–84  102  0.659  0.271  2350  0.781  0.167  −0.122  0.000 
85+  28  0.473  0.233  815  0.625  0.182  −0.152  0.002 
Total1059  0.728  0.226  20,587  0.914  0.150  −0.187  0.000 

EQ-5D-5L: EuroQoL of 5-dimensions and 5-levels; RS-RyCUH: Rheumatology Service of the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital; ENSE: National Health Survey of Spain 2011–2012; VAS: visual analog scale; S.D.: standard deviation.

*

Student's t test for independent samples.

The EQ-Index was calculated for 1059 patients (mean 0.728; SD: 0.226; median 0.776; IQR: 0.625–0.899). The EQ-Index was higher in men (mean 0.788) than in women (mean 0.703) (p=0.000; Mann–Whitney U test), and tended to be lower with advancing age. For example, in patients between 18 and 24 years old it was 0.858, while in subjects over 85 years old it was 0.473 (p=0.000; Kruskal–Wallis test). The mean EQ-Index in the patients (0.728) was lower than that of the general Spanish population (0.914) (p=0.000), and also when compared by gender and age (Table 5).

Discussion

The present study, aimed to determine the HRQoL of patients seen in the rheumatology clinic of a university general hospital, detected a worse HRQoL in rheumatic patients than in the general population in all dimensions, especially for the “pain/discomfort”, followed by “daily activities” and “mobility” items. This reduction in HRQoL was observed for all age ranges. The reduction in HRQoL affected all RD subtypes, especially the “peripheral and axial mechanical pathology” and the “soft tissue pathology” group. Although HRQoL is considered a primary objective in chronic disease management, its implementation in clinical practice is limited and there are scarce data in the literature.

The patient sample for this series had a similar distribution, in terms of gender and RD, to that found in other studies.27–31 In addition, the current findings are consistent with previous studies regarding the higher frequency of comorbidities in rheumatic patients when compared to the general population. For example, only 6.5% of patients declared they did not have any disease (besides the disease for which they attended the consultation), while in the general Spanish population this proportion is 27%.24 Other studies also show a higher frequency of any comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis than in the general population.32–34 In addition, in this study, almost 70% of the patients had three or more associated diseases, while this proportion in chronic patients with other illnesses is 40%.35

The perception of health status as bad or very bad in more than 20% of those surveyed, compared to 6.7% in the Spanish population,21 could be partly due to the high presence of multiple morbidities in rheumatic patients.

These results on HRQoL in rheumatic patients are consistent with Branco et al.’s study.36 The most affected dimension was “pain/discomfort” (84%), followed by “anxiety/depression” and “mobility”, as expected, findings which were similar to other studies in rheumatic patients.37 In the Picavet study, the worst results in HRQoL were obtained in patients with multiple RD in all EQ-5D dimensions compared to patients without RD, mainly in the areas of pain/discomfort (62.5% versus 31.2%) and daily activities (34.5% versus 12.4%).38 When compared with other chronic diseases, RD obtained the lowest HRQoL rates.39 It is important to take into account that RD are mostly chronic, without a curative treatment, and the main therapeutic objective should be an improvement in HRQoL.

As in Sánchez-Iriso's study, the VAS was higher in men than in women,35 and decreased with age, with the mean VAS in RS-RyCUH patients being 12 points lower than in the general Spanish population. The EQ-Index was also lower in patients (0.728) than in the general Spanish population (0.914).

The most important limitation of this study was the lack of completion of some data, especially some items of the EQ-5D-5L, but the maximum loss was 54 (4.7%) data in the “anxiety/depression” dimension, so the study of the dimensions of the quality of life of the EQ-5D-5L was barely affected. The absence of data in any of the 5-dimensions meant that the EQ-Index could not be calculated in 85 (7.4%) patients. In addition, 87 (7.6%) patients did not complete the VAS. This absence of data, most probably due to a random variety of reasons, represented less than 8% of the total, and should not have introduced appreciable biases or altered the results of the study.40

The sample of patients constituted a good representation of the type of patients seen in the rheumatology department of a large hospital. In addition, the sample size, the consecutive inclusion of patients, which minimized potential selection bias, the verification of RD diagnoses by a rheumatologist, and the consistency between the data declared by the patient and the existing information in the MR, as verified in the data cleaning process, may also be considered a strength of the study.

The findings of this study suggest that HRQoL should be considered a fundamental variable in rheumatology clinics to describe the situation of patients and a measure of outcome of interventions they receive across all age groups, aiding the understanding of the effects of the disease and its treatment in patients. The repercussion of medical acts in people's lives is important and the gain in health can only be complete if the HRQoL of patients is improved, they are involved in achieving this multidimensional improvement, and achieve a more active doctor–patient relationship. The patient should not be a passive subject, but should take responsibility for maintaining their health and participate in decision-making in relation to their disease.

More studies are needed to assess the impact of lifestyle, comorbidities, as well as particular RD and their treatments on HRQoL. Studies on the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions in rheumatology should consider HRQoL as one of the key outcome variables.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A
Supplementary data

The following are the supplementary data to this article:

References
[1]
K. Haraldstad, A. Wahl, R. Andenæs, M.H. Andersen, E. Beisland, C.R. Borge, et al.
A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences.
Qual Life Res, 28 (2019), pp. 2641-2650
[2]
G. Kingsley, I.C. Scott, D.L. Scott.
Quality of life and the outcome of established rheumatoid arthritis.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 25 (2011), pp. 585-606
[3]
M.P. Staples, L. March, M. Lassere, C. Reid, R. Buchbinder.
Health-related quality of life and continuation rate on first-line anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy among rheumatoid arthritis patients from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database.
Rheumatology (Oxford), 50 (2011), pp. 166-175
[4]
U. Kiltz, D. Kiefer, A. Boonen.
(Health-related) quality of life as an outcome in studies of axial spondyloarthritis.
Rheum Dis Clin North Am, 46 (2020), pp. 379-393
[5]
R.M. Kaplan, R.D. Hays.
Health-related quality of life measurement in public health.
Annu Rev Public Health, 43 (2022), pp. 355-373
[6]
J.A. Fernández-López, M. Fernández-Fidalgo, A. Cieza.
Quality of life, health and well-being conceptualizations from the perspective of the International Classification of Functioning, disability and health (ICF).
Rev Esp Salud Publica, 84 (2010), pp. 169-184
[7]
F. Wolfe, D.J. Hawley.
Measurement of the quality of life in rheumatic disorders using the EuroQol.
Rheumatology, 36 (1997), pp. 786-793
[8]
X. Badia, M. Roset, S. Montserrat, M. Herdman, A. Segura.
The Spanish version of EuroQol: a description and its applications. European Quality of Life scale.
Med Clin (Barc), 112 (1999), pp. 79-85
[9]
EuroQol Group.
EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.
Health Policy, 16 (1990), pp. 199-208
[10]
E. Yelin, L.F. Callahan, The National Arthritis Data Work Group.
Special article the economic cost and social and psychological impact of musculoskeletal conditions.
Arthritis Rheum, 38 (1995), pp. 1351-1360
[11]
L. Carmona.
The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the general population of Spain: results from a national survey.
Ann Rheum Dis, 60 (2001), pp. 1040-1045
[12]
C. Desthieux, B. Granger, A.R. Balanescu, P. Balint, J. Braun, J.D. Canete, et al.
Determinants of patient–physician discordance in global assessment in psoriatic arthritis: a multicenter European study.
Arthritis Care Res, 69 (2017), pp. 1606-1611
[13]
J.L. Barton, J. Imboden, J. Graf, D. Glidden, E.H. Yelin, D. Schillinger.
Patient–physician discordance in assessments of global disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Care Res, 62 (2010), pp. 857-864
[14]
L.H.D. van Tuyl, M. Sadlonova, S. Hewlett, B. Davis, C. Flurey, N. Goel, et al.
The patient perspective on absence of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: a survey to identify key domains of patient-perceived remission.
Ann Rheum Dis, 76 (2017), pp. 855-861
[15]
L. Gossec, X. Braliakos, A. Kerschbaumer, M. DE Wit, I. Mclnnes, M. Dougados, et al.
EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update.
Ann Rheum Dis, 79 (2020), pp. 700-712
[16]
Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social. Encuesta Nacional de Salud. España 2011/12. Cuestionario de Adultos. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/encuestaNacional/encuestaNac2011/Cuestionario_Adultos.pdf [accessed 30.10.19].
[17]
Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social. Encuesta Nacional de Salud. España 2011/12. Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2011–2012. ENSE 2011–2012. Metodología. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/encuestaNacional/encuesta2011.htm [accessed 28.1.20].
[18]
K. Fagbemi.
Q: What is the best questionnaire to screen for alcohol use disorder in an office practice.
Cleve Clin J Med, 78 (2011), pp. 649-651
[19]
M.Á. García Carretero, J.P. Novalbos Ruiz, J.M. Martínez Delgado, C. O’Ferrall González.
Validación del test para la identificación de trastornos por uso de alcohol en población universitaria: AUDIT y AUDIT-C.
Adicciones, 28 (2016), pp. 194-204
[20]
A. Nolasco, C. Barona, N. Tamayo-Fonseca, M.Á. Irles, R. Más, J. Tuells, et al.
Alfabetización en salud: propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario HLS-EU-Q16.
Gac Sanit, 34 (2020), pp. 399-402
[21]
Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Encuesta Nacional de Salud. España 2011/12. Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en adultos: EQ-5D-5L. Serie Informes monográficos n° 3. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, 2014. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/encuestaNacional/encuesta2011.htm [accessed 28.1.20].
[22]
eCIE10ES. Edición electrónica de la CIE-10-ES Diagnósticos. 3ª Edición-enero 2020. https://eciemaps.mscbs.gob.es/ecieMaps/browser/index_10_mc_old.html [accessed 17.1.20].
[23]
P.L. Ferreira, S.P. Gonçalves, L.N. Ferreira, L.N. Pereira, P. Antunes, N. Gouveia, et al.
Assessing quality of life of self-reported rheumatic patients.
Rheumatol Int, 36 (2016), pp. 1265-1274
[24]
J.M. Ramos-Goñi, B.M. Craig, M. Oppe, Y. Ramallo-Fariña, J.L. Pinto-Prades, N. Luo, et al.
Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach.
Value Health, 21 (2018), pp. 596-604
[25]
Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos y Garantía de los Derechos Digitales. BOE núm. 294, de 6 de diciembre de 2018, páginas 119788 a 119857. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2018/12/05/3 [accessed 29.10.19].
[26]
Ley 41/2002, de 14 de noviembre, básica reguladora de la autonomía del paciente y de derechos y obligaciones en materia de información y documentación clínica. BOE núm. 274, de 15/11/2002. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2002-22188&tn=1&p=20181206 [accessed 29.10.19].
[27]
F.J. Blanco, M. Silva-Díaz, V. Quevedo Vila, D. Seoane-Mato, F. Pérez Ruíz, A. Juan-Mas, et al.
Prevalencia de artrosis sintomática en España: estudio EPISER 2016.
Reumatol Clin, 17 (2021), pp. 461-470
[28]
L. Silva-Fernández, C. Macía-Villa, D. Seoane-Mato, R. Cortés-Verdú, A. Romero-Pérez, V. Quevedo-Vila, et al.
The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain.
[29]
T. Font Gayà, C. Bordoy Ferrer, A. Juan Mas, D. Seoane-Mato, F. Álvarez Reyes, M. Delgado Sánchez, et al.
Prevalence of fibromyalgia and associated factors in Spain.
Clin Exp Rheumatol, 123 (2020), pp. 47-52
[30]
T.K. Kvien, T. Uhlig, S. Ødegård, M.S. Heiberg.
Epidemiological aspects of rheumatoid arthritis: the sex ratio.
Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1069 (2006), pp. 212-222
[31]
K.H. Yu, L.C. See, C.F. Kuo, I.J. Chou, M.J. Chou.
Prevalence and incidence in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan.
Arthritis Care Res, 65 (2013), pp. 244-250
[32]
J. Ursum, J.C. Korevaar, J.W.R. Twisk, M.J.L. Peters, F.G. Schellevis, M.T. Nurmohamed, et al.
Prevalence of chronic diseases at the onset of inflammatory arthritis: a population-based study.
Fam Pract, 30 (2013), pp. 615-620
[33]
M. Dougados, M. Soubrier, A. Antunez, P. Balint, A. Balsa, M.H. Buch, et al.
Prevalence of comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis and evaluation of their monitoring results of an international, cross-sectional study (COMORA).
Ann Rheum Dis, 73 (2014), pp. 62-68
[34]
P. Ungprasert, N. Srivali, W. Cheungpasitporn, J.M. Davis III.
Risk of incident chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Joint Bone Spine, 83 (2016), pp. 290-294
[35]
E. Sánchez-Iriso, M. Errea Rodriguez, J.M. Cabasés Hita.
Valuing health using EQ-5D: the impact of chronic diseases on the stock of health.
Health Econ, 28 (2019), pp. 1402-1417
[36]
J.C. Branco, A.M. Rodrigues, N. Gouveia, M. Eusebio, S. Ramiro, P.M. Machado, et al.
Prevalencia de enfermedades reumáticas músculoesqueléticas y su impacto en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, la función física y la salud mental en Portugal: resultados de EpiReumaPt, una encuesta nacional de salud.
RMD Open, 2 (2016), pp. e000166
[37]
F. Salaffi, M. Di Carlo, M. Carotti, S. Frah, A. Ciapetti, M. Gutierrez.
The impacto f different rheumatic diseases on health-related quality of life: a comparison with a selected sample of healthy individuals using SF-36 questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values.
Acta Biomed, 89 (2018), pp. 541-557
[38]
H.S.J. Picavet, Hoeymans.
Health related quality of life in multiple musculoskeletal diseases: SF-36 and EQ-5D in the DMC3 study.
Ann Rheum Dis, 63 (2004), pp. 723-729
[39]
M.A.G. Sprangers, E.B. de Regt, F. Andries, H.M. van Agt, R.V. Bijl, J.B. de Boer, et al.
Which chronic conditions are associated with better or poorer quality of life.
J Clin Epidemiol, 53 (2000), pp. 895-907
[40]
J.C. Jakobsen, C. Gluud, J. Wetterslev, P. Winkel.
When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 17 (2017), pp. 162
Copyright © 2023. Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Reumatología y Colegio Mexicano de Reumatología
Download PDF
Idiomas
Reumatología Clínica (English Edition)
Article options
Tools
Supplemental materials
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?