Article Text

PDF
What determines quality of life in inclusion body myositis?
  1. R Sadjadi,
  2. M R Rose,
  3. Muscle Study Group*
  1. Department of Neurology, King's College Hospital and King's College London School of Medicine, University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michael R Rose, Department of Neurology, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK; m.r.rose{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Quality of life (QoL) assessment allows healthcare professionals to appreciate the patient perspective of their disease. This can help us make a better choice from among the various ways we currently measure the severity of a muscle disease such as inclusion body myositis (IBM). However, we cannot assume that QoL in IBM is just related to disease severity as psychosocial factors may play an important role in determining QoL.

Methods Sixty subjects with IBM had assessments of disease severity and concurrent assessment of mood and QoL using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36).

Results There were significant reductions in Physical functioning, Role physical, General health and Social functioning domains of the SF-36. Functional disability was more indicative of the broader effects of IBM on SF-36 than was the muscle strength sum score. Mood was relatively independent of disease severity and had a different profile of effects on SF-36 domains. Up to 14% of the effect of functional disability on some aspects of QoL was mediated through mood.

Conclusions The functional disability caused by IBM reduces QoL, but psychosocial factors such as mood affect QoL directly and by influencing the degree to which disease severity reduces QoL. Further study should follow the effects of IBM on QoL over time and look at the influence of other psychosocial factors. Such studies may point to psychosocial interventions that may help improve QoL in IBM even if the disease itself cannot be treated.

  • Inclusion body myositis
  • quality of life

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • * Members are given in the Appendix.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the institutional review board of four US centres and the LREC approval from King's College Hospital London, UK.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.