Cross Cultural Validation of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire in Lupus Patients From Latin America

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to perform a cross-cultural validation of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI-Lupus v2.0) questionnaire in Latin American individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), using data from the GLADEL cohort. METHODS: GLADEL 2.0 is an observational cohort of SLE patients ≥ 18 years old. Clinical data, disease activity (SLEDAI-2 K), damage index (SDI), physician's global assessment (PGA) and patient-reported outcomes (WPAI-Lupus v2.0, LupusQoL), were assessed at baseline and during follow-up. Construct validity was evaluated through Spearman correlations with SLEDAI-2 K, SDI and LupusQoL. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and responsiveness over 12 months was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Appropriate statistical tests (p < 0.05) were performed using R software, version 4.4.0. RESULTS: Among 1083 patients, 684 were evaluated at baseline and at 12 months. Cronbach's alpha values were: absenteeism 0.54; presenteeism 0.64; overall work impairment 0.62; activity impairment 0.62. WPAI-Lupus v2.0 scores correlated with SLEDAI-2 K (p < 0.001) and negatively with LupusQoL domains. Moderate correlations were observed between activity impairment and physical health, pain and planning (r ≈ -0.52 to -0.58). Presenteeism and overall work impairment also showed moderate correlations with physical health and pain domains (r ≈ -0.49 to -0.53). WPAI-Lupus v2.0 was sensitive to change over 12 months (p = 0.001) for all domains except intimate relationship. CONCLUSIONS: WPAI-Lupus v2.0 demonstrated good validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness. It correlated with disease activity and quality of life, supporting the WPAI-Lupus v2.0 as a valid tool to assess work and activity impairment in Latin American patients with SLE.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.