Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire Research Articles

Validation, Reliability, and Clinical Significance of the Arabic Version of Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire.

Clinically relevant fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients significantly affects their quality of life. Almost all studies have assessed fatigue in this population using non-specific scales. The present multi-centric study aimed to assess the validity, reliability, and clinical significance of the Arabic version of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ). The present cross-sectional multicentric study was conducted at Aswan, Mansoura, Port Said, and Al-Azhar University Hospitals over a 6-month duration. The study included 311 patients with RA diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. The Arabic version of BRAF-MDQ was developed to assess fatigue in these patients. All patients were subjected to careful history taking, thorough clinical assessment, and standard laboratory work-up. The obtained Arabic BRAF-MDQ was tested for construct validity, internal consistency, testretest reproducibility, and criterion validity. Construct validity was evaluated using factor analysis with the Kaiser Meyer Olkin tool of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's sphericity test. Internal consistency of subscales was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reproducibility was assessed after a 1-week interval using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to correlate numerical variables. Predictors of fatigue were identified using binary logistic regression analysis. The present study included 311 RA patients. Construct validity assessment showed a high loading of questionnaire items within the proposed construct subscales with a KMO measure of sphericity of 0.927 and Bartlett's test of sphericity p-value < 0.001. Internal consistency assessment showed adequate Cronbach's alpha of Arabic BRAF-MDQ subscales. Total Arabic BRAFMDQ had excellent criterion validity, as indicated by the high correlations with MAFS (r=0.95, p < 0.001) and SF-36 vitality subscale (r=-0.91, p < 0.001). Clinically significant fatigue was identified in 214 patients (68.8%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed age (OR (95% CI): 1.07 (1.02-1.12), p < 0.001), disease duration (OR (95% CI): 1.82 (1.43-2.33), p < 0.001), DAS28CRP (OR (95% CI): 8.62 (4.63-16.02), p < 0.001), and mHAQ (OR (95% CI): 3.85 (1.07-13.9), p = 0 .039) as significant predictors of fatigue development in the studied patients. The Arabic version of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire is a valid, consistent, and reliable tool for the assessment of fatigue in Egyptian rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clinically significant fatigue was identified in 214 patients (68.8%). Further, risk factors for fatigue included older age, longer disease duration, and higher disease activity.

Fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis patients: The status, independent risk factors, and consistency of multiple scales.

Fatigue is a common symptom that negatively affects the outcomes and functions of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This study aimed to assess the fatigue by two scales and validate their consistency, also to comprehensively evaluate fatigue-related risk factors in RA patients. In this case-control study, the fatigue of 160 RA patients and 60 healthy controls was evaluated by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and the Chinese version of the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-C). The 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate of RA patients was assessed. The BRAF-MDQ and BFI-C scores were elevated in RA patients versus healthy controls (all p < .001). Interestingly, BRAF-MDQ global fatigue score positively correlated with BFI-C global fatigue score in both RA patients (r = .669, p < .001) and healthy controls (r = .527, p < .001); meanwhile, Kendall's tau-b test showed a high consistency between BRAF-MDQ and BFI-C global fatigue scores in RA patients (W = 0.759, p < .001) and healthy controls (W = 0.933, p < .001). Notably, higher education level (В = -4.547; 95% confidence interval: -7.065, -2.029; p < .001) and swollen joint count (В = 1.965; 95% confidence interval: 1.375, 2.554; p < .001) independently related to BRAF-MDQ global fatigue score; higher education level (В = -0.613; 95% confidence interval: -0.956, -0.269; p = .001) and clinical disease activity index (В = 0.053; 95% confidence interval: 0.005, 0.102; p = .032) independently linked with BFI-C global fatigue score. Fatigue commonly occurs in RA patients, which independently relates to education level and disease activity. Furthermore, BRAF-MDQ and BFI-C scales exhibit a high consistency in assessing fatigue.

Assessment of Correlation of Fatigue in Patients of Rheumatoid Arthritis using Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire Score with Disease Activity – An Indian Experience

Background: Fatigue affects 40%–80% patients of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), impairing their quality of life. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess fatigue by means of Bristol RA Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire score (BRAF-MDQ) and correlate it with the disease activity of RA patients. One hundred RA patients (as per American College of rheumatology 1987 criteria) having no underlying other chronic disease were evaluated at baseline (M0), 1 month (M1), and 3 months (M3) for fatigue (using BRAF-MDQ) and disease activity Disease Activity Index 28 (DAS-28) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). The correlation between fatigue score and disease activity score was evaluated. Results: Fatigue score (BRAF-MDQ) decreased from 19.28 ± 13.846 at baseline to 17.46 ± 13.56 at M1 and 13.27 ± 11.633 at M3, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, there was significant decrease in disease activity of DAS-28 from 4.439 ± 1.41 at baseline to 3.715 ± 1.655 at M1 and 3.668 ± 1.46 at M3; while CDAI reduced from 18.82 ± 14.314 at baseline to 14.16 ± 12.611 at M1 and 11.65 ± 11.769 at M3, respectively (P < 0.001). There was a positive significant correlation (P value < 0.001) between BRAF-MDQ score and DAS-28 score (r = 0.503; 0.687 and 0.680) and CDAI score (r = 0.642,0.728 and 0.732) at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that CDAI (M0) was a significant factor affecting BRAF-MOQ score at follow-up of 3 months (M3) with beta coefficient of 0.872, P < 0.0001. Conclusion: The results of the present study indicate that fatigue quantum is related to disease activity and should be evaluated at the time of diagnosis. BRAF-MDQ is a simple, yet effective patient reported outcome questionnaire which assessed the fatigue quantum. Routine assessment of fatigue through BRAF-MDQ along with assessment of disease activity will be a holistic approach in management of RA.

Measuring Fatigue in Rheumatoid Arthritis' Patients with the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS): A Cross-Sectional Study

Fatigue is a common problem in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and many factors are responsible for its etiology. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the current status of fatigue and to evaluate the factors related to fatigue by using the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS) developed specifically for RA in patients with RA. 64 patients with RA were included in the study. The Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP) of 28 joints was used to assess disease activity, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was used to assess functional status. In addition, BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS scales were used to assess fatigue, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) were used to screen for psychiatric symptoms. All correlations between BRAF-MDQ, BRAF-NRS scales and DAS28-CRP, BAI, BDI were statistically significant (p<0.05, each other). BRAF-MDQ, BRAF-NRS scales were found to be unrelated to age, seropositivity, and drugs used. Considering the effect of disease activity, HAQ, anxiety and depressive symptoms on the BRAF-MDQ total, it was associated only with BAI (p<0.001, 95% CI 0.593-1.768). In this study, we showed the contribution of anxiety and depressive symptoms to fatigue as well as disease activity. We consider that effective interventions focusing on these symptoms can improve fatigue and reduce the burden of chronic disease.

Validation of the Danish versions of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaires (BRAFs)

Objective: This study aimed to validate the Danish versions of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and BRAF Numerical Rating Scale version 2 (NRSv2). Method: We tested face and content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, and reproducibility for the BRAF-MDQ, and face and criterion validity and reproducibility for the BRAF-NRS. Results: In all, 224/236 patients (95%) completed the questionnaires [70% female, mean ± sd age 59 ± 13.04 years, disease duration 11.2 ± 9.49 years, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) 0.724 ± 0.70, and 28-joint Disease Activity Score–C-reactive protein 2.55 ± 1.24]. The unidimensionality for the physical and cognitive fatigue subscales was confirmed, whereas the living with fatigue and emotional fatigue subscales were not unidimensional. Cronbach’s α was 0.94 for the BRAF-MDQ total and 0.78–0.92 for the four subscales. The correlations between BRAF-MDQ and various measures were: 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) vitality subscale, 0.75; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety subscale, 0.65; HADS depression subscale, 0.62; visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, 0.62; VAS global, 0.73; and HAQ, 0.62. The intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement was 0.995. A Bland–Altman plot showed a mean ± sd difference of −1.9 ± 3.62 for BRAF-MDQ. Correlation coefficients between the BRAF-NRSv2 subscales and other subscales were: BRAF-MDQ subscales, 0.57–0.93; SF-36 vitality subscale, 0.54–0.68; and VAS fatigue, 0.66–0.82. Conclusions: The Danish BRAFs are considered valid and reliable for use among Danish patients with rheumatoid arthritis, despite the subscales living with fatigue and emotional fatigue not being unidimensional, as they are in the original version.

Multimorbidity and Fatigue in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Population-Based Cohort.

IntroductionThe objective was to evaluate the relationships between multimorbidity and overall fatigue as well as fatigue subdomains in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsA cross-sectional study of a population-based cohort of patients with RA was performed. Fatigue was assessed using the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ). Patients’ medical records were reviewed for 25 chronic comorbidities prior to the BRAF-MDQ. Linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate the differences in BRAF-MDQ total and subdomain (physical, living, cognitive, and emotional) scores associated with multimorbidity, adjusting for age, sex, disease duration, obesity, smoking, C-reactive protein, and RA autoantibodies. Higher BRAF-MDQ scores indicate greater fatigue severity.ResultsThe cohort included 192 patients, median age 62 years, and median RA duration 13 years. Multimorbidity was common with 93 (48%) having ≥ 2 comorbidities, and 27 (14%) having ≥ 4 comorbidities. The median BRAF-MDQ total score was 9 (interquartile range 3–18), with higher scores indicating greater fatigue. Patients with ≥ 4 comorbidities had higher total BRAF-MDQ scores (median 16.5, interquartile range: 6.8–24.8) than patients with < 4 comorbidities (7.5, 2.8–16.0; p = 0.014). Each additional comorbidity was associated with a 2.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–3.56) unit increase in total BRAF-MDQ score (p < 0.001), and the presence of ≥ 4 comorbidities was associated with a 9.33 (95% CI 3.92–14.7) unit increase in total BRAF-MDQ score. Multimorbidity was significantly associated with all four fatigue subdomains in adjusted models.ConclusionsMultimorbidity is associated with increased fatigue in patients with RA. The findings suggest that interventions targeting multimorbidity could help alleviate treatment-refractory fatigue in patients with RA and other rheumatic diseases.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-020-00247-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Group cognitive-behavioural programme to reduce the impact of rheumatoid arthritis fatigue: the RAFT RCT with economic and qualitative evaluations.

Fatigue is a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence for the clinical effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by clinical psychologists, but few rheumatology units have psychologists. To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group CBT programme for RA fatigue [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive-behavioural (CB) approaches], delivered by the rheumatology team in addition to usual care (intervention), with usual care alone (control); and to evaluate tutors' experiences of the RAFT programme. A randomised controlled trial. Central trials unit computerised randomisation in four consecutive cohorts within each of the seven centres. A nested qualitative evaluation was undertaken. Seven hospital rheumatology units in England and Wales. Adults with RA and fatigue severity of ≥ 6 [out of 10, as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS)] who had no recent changes in major RA medication/glucocorticoids. RAFT - group CBT programme delivered by rheumatology tutor pairs (nurses/occupational therapists). Usual care - brief discussion of a RA fatigue self-management booklet with the research nurse. Primary - fatigue impact (as measured by the BRAF-NRS) at 26 weeks. Secondary - fatigue severity/coping (as measured by the BRAF-NRS); broader fatigue impact [as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ)]; self-reported clinical status; quality of life; mood; self-efficacy; and satisfaction. All data were collected at weeks 0, 6, 26, 52, 78 and 104. In addition, fatigue data were collected at weeks 10 and 18. The intention-to-treat analysis conducted was blind to treatment allocation, and adjusted for baseline scores and centre. Cost-effectiveness was explored through the intervention and RA-related health and social care costs, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). Tutor and focus group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. A total of 308 out of 333 patients completed 26 weeks (RAFT, n/N = 156/175; control, n/N = 152/158). At 26 weeks, the mean BRAF-NRS impact was reduced for the RAFT programme (-1.36 units; p < 0.001) and the control interventions (-0.88 units; p < 0.004). Regression analysis showed a difference between treatment arms in favour of the RAFT programme [adjusted mean difference -0.59 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to -0.06 units; p = 0.03, effect size 0.36], and this was sustained over 2 years (-0.49 units, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.14 units; p = 0.01). At 26 weeks, further fatigue differences favoured the RAFT programme (BRAF-MDQ fatigue impact: adjusted mean difference -3.42 units, 95% CI -6.44 to - 0.39 units, p = 0.03; living with fatigue: adjusted mean difference -1.19 units, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21 units, p = 0.02; and emotional fatigue: adjusted mean difference -0.91 units, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.23 units, p = 0.01), and these fatigue differences were sustained over 2 years. Self-efficacy favoured the RAFT programme at 26 weeks (Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale: adjusted mean difference 3.05 units, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.6 units; p = 0.02), as did BRAF-NRS coping over 2 years (adjusted mean difference 0.42 units, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77 units; p = 0.02). Fatigue severity and other clinical outcomes were not different between trial arms and no harms were reported. Satisfaction with the RAFT programme was high, with 89% of patients scoring ≥ 8 out of 10, compared with 54% of patients in the control arm rating the booklet (p < 0.0001); and 96% of patients and 68% of patients recommending the RAFT programme and the booklet, respectively, to others (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arms for total societal costs including the RAFT programme training and delivery (mean difference £434, 95% CI -£389 to £1258), nor QALYs gained (mean difference 0.008, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.023). The probability of the RAFT programme being cost-effective was 28-35% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Tutors felt that the RAFT programme's CB approaches challenged their usual problem-solving style, helped patients make life changes and improved tutors' wider clinical practice. Primary outcome data were missing for 25 patients; the EQ-5D-5L might not capture fatigue change; and 30% of the 2-year economic data were missing. The RAFT programme improves RA fatigue impact beyond usual care alone; this was sustained for 2 years with high patient satisfaction, enhanced team skills and no harms. The RAFT programme is < 50% likely to be cost-effective; however, NHS costs were similar between treatment arms. Given the paucity of RA fatigue interventions, rheumatology teams might investigate the pragmatic implementation of the RAFT programme, which is low cost. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52709998. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The relationship between bristol rheumatoid arthritis fatigue scales and disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Fatigue is a symptom that affects the 40-80% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and impairs the quality of life. The aim of this study was to assess multidimensional fatigue scales, the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS) and to evaluate their relationship with disease activity in Turkish RA patients. The study included 180 patients with RA. The Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) were used to evaluate disease activity. The participants comprised of 142 females and 38 males. The mean ± standard deviations of DAS28, CDAI, and SDAI were 3 ± 1.24, 9.51 ± 7.96, and 10.5 ± 8.38 respectively. All scales except the emotional subscale were correlated with disease activity. The emotional subscale correlated with CDAI and SDAI but not with DAS28. The results of the study indicated that fatigue and disease activity were correlated. Fatigue is a symptom that impairs the quality of life but it can be easily coped with by controlling disease activity. Thus, it should be assessed in a multidimensional perspective.

Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire.

Up to 98% of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients experienced fatigue. It is an important physical and cognitive symptom which has overwhelming, uncontrollable, and unpredictable affects throughout their whole life. RA fatigue composes of complex and multi-dimensional components which are pain, stress, depression, inflammation, and disability. The acknowledgement of fatigue is important, and fatigue should be measured in all RA trials alongside the core set. The aim of this study was to determine reliability and validity of Turkish version of Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire in RA patients. One hundred RA patients were evaluated in the study. Exclusion criteria were determined as patients with cognitive impairment, illiterate patients, unable to understand and speak Turkish, under the age of 18, and over the age of 75. To validate Turkish version of Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) (BRAF-MDQ-T), all participants answered BRAF-MDQ-T, Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale, and Short Form-36 vitality (SF-36 VT). BRAF-MDQ-T was applied again 7days later for test-retest reliability. Validity, internal consistency, and test-retest results were based on a sample of 100 patients. Internal consistency reliability of BRAF-MDQ-T was Cronbach α = 0.95 which was excellent. The correlation between the total scores of the BRAF-MDQ-T scale and the total scores of MAF-T was statistically significant (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). The correlation between the total scores of the BRAF-MDQ-T scale and the subscale scores of SF-36 VT was statistically significant (r = - 0.64, p < 0.001). The BRAF-MDQ-T is a valid and reliable scale for the assessment of fatigue in Turkish rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Measuring fatigue with multiple instruments in a Brazilian cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis patients

ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of fatigue in a Brazilian population with early rheumatoid arthritis using multiple instruments, and the predictors of these instruments by differents independent variables. MethodsCross-sectional study with direct interview and medical records review. Fatigue, dependent variable, was assessed using eight instruments: Profile of Mood States (POMS), Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue scale (MAF), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS), Short-form Survey 36 (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) and Visual Analogic Scale for Fatigue (VASf). Independent variables: sociodemographic, clinical and serological, were measured using medical records and direct interview. Disability and disease activity were assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and disease activity assessed using the Disease Activity Score 28 joints (DAS28). The scores of scales demonstrated the level of fatigue and multiple linear regression method used in statistical analysis to demonstrate prediction models. ResultsA total of 80 patients was assessed, and 57 reported clinically relevant fatigue (VASf>2), representing 71.25% prevalence point (51 women [89.5%], mean age 48.35±15 years, and mean disease duration of 4.92±3.8 years). Eight predictive models showed statistical significance, one for each fatigue instrument. The highest coefficient of determination (R2) was 56% for SF-36 and the lowest (R2=21%) for FSS. The HAQ was the only independent variable to predict fatigue on all instruments. ConclusionClinically relevant fatigue is a highly prevalent symptom and is mostly predicted by disability and age in the population assessed.

Mensuração da fadiga com múltiplos instrumentos em uma coorte brasileira de pacientes com artrite reumatoide em fase inicial

ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of fatigue in a Brazilian population with early rheumatoid arthritis using multiple instruments, and the predictors of these instruments by differents independent variables. MethodsCross‐sectional study with direct interview and medical records review. Fatigue, dependent variable, was assessed using eight instruments: Profile of Mood States (POMS), Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue scale (MAF), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF‐MDQ), Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF‐NRS), Short‐form Survey 36 (SF‐36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT‐F) and Visual Analogic Scale for Fatigue (VASf). Independent variables: sociodemographic, clinical and serological, were measured using medical records and direct interview. Disability and disease activity were assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and disease activity assessed using the Disease Activity Score 28 joints (DAS28). The scores of scales demonstrated the level of fatigue and multiple linear regression method used in statistical analysis to demonstrate prediction models. ResultsA total of 80 patients was assessed, and 57 reported clinically relevant fatigue (VASf >2), representing 71.25% prevalence point (51 women [89.5%], mean age 48.35 ±15 years, and mean disease duration of 4.92 ±3.8 years). Eight predictive models showed statistical significance, one for each fatigue instrument. The highest coefficient of determination (R2) was 56% for SF‐36 and the lowest (R2=21%) for FSS. The HAQ was the only independent variable to predict fatigue on all instruments. ConclusionClinically relevant fatigue is a highly prevalent symptom and is mostly predicted by disability and age in the population assessed.

Seasonal variations in fatigue in persons with rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal study.

BackgroundFatigue is a prominent symptom in persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although this symptom has been described to vary in duration and frequency little is known about fluctuations in fatigue over time and season. The aim of this study was to describe monthly and seasonal variations in fatigue, in persons with RA of working age.MethodsSixty-five participants diagnosed with RA and aged 20–65 years were recruited from a rheumatology clinic in Sweden. The participants provided self-assessments of their fatigue at seven time points during the four seasons using a 0–100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ). Multiple regression analysis using mixed models was used to analyze changes in fatigue over time.ResultsThe mean ± SD of fatigue rated on the VAS was 51 ± 13, indicating substantial fatigue.Analysis of monthly variation showed statistically significant variation in fatigue ratings concerning VAS fatigue score (p < 0.01) as well as the BRAF-MDQ total score and Living, Cognition (p < 0.001), and Physical (p < 0.05) sub-scores, but not the BRAF-MDQ Emotional sub-score. The greatest variations were seen from January to September, with higher fatigue ratings in January. The changes in VAS fatigue scores over time were considered to be of clinical importance. Analysis of seasonal variation revealed a statistically significant seasonal variation in fatigue levels, with higher fatigue values during the winter as measured by VAS fatigue score (p < 0.01) as well as BRAF-MDQ total score (p < 0.01) and Physical and Living sub-scores (both p < 0.01). The greatest variation was seen between winter and autumn for VAS fatigue and between winter and summer for BRAF-MDQ total score and Physical and Living sub-scores. There were no statistical differences in fatigue levels, monthly or seasonal, between sexes or age groups.ConclusionsThe majority of rating scales used in this study showed fluctuations in fatigue, general and physical fatigue being significantly greater during the winter. As fatigue is a substantial symptom in many persons with RA, this information is important for rheumatology professionals when dealing with persons with RA in routine care.

Assessment of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a psychometric comparison of single-item, multiitem, and multidimensional measures.

To compare the psychometric functioning of multidimensional disease-specific, multiitem generic, and single-item measures of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and longitudinal item response theory (IRT) modeling were used to evaluate the measurement structure and local reliability of the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) vitality scale, and the BRAF Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS) in a sample of 588 patients with RA. A 1-factor CFA model yielded a similar fit to a 5-factor model with subscale-specific dimensions, and the items from the different instruments adequately fit the IRT model, suggesting essential unidimensionality in measurement. The SF-36 vitality scale outperformed the BRAF-MDQ at lower levels of fatigue, but was less precise at moderate to higher levels of fatigue. At these levels of fatigue, the living, cognition, and emotion subscales of the BRAF-MDQ provide additional precision. The BRAF-NRS showed a limited measurement range with its highest precision centered on average levels of fatigue. The different instruments appear to access a common underlying domain of fatigue severity, but differ considerably in their measurement precision along the continuum. The SF-36 vitality scale can be used to measure fatigue severity in samples with relatively mild fatigue. For samples expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the multidimensional BRAF-MDQ appears to be a better choice. The BRAF-NRS are not recommended if precise assessment is required, for instance in longitudinal settings.

OP0087-HPR Have You Felt Embarrassed or Upset? an Example of the Care Needed in Translating Patient Reported Outcome Measures

BackgroundInternational rheumatology research often requires the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROM) such as questionnaires. These need translation into many languages and it is essential that the translated versions...

Fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis and its relation to interleukin-6 serum level

Patients and methodsThe study included 30 patients with RA diagnosed according to the 2010 ACR-EULAR classification criteria for RA and 15 healthy controls. Patients were included if they were above 18 years and fulfilled a score ⩾6 over 10 of the 2010 ACR-EULAR classification criteria for RA. Disease activity was assessed using 28 joint disease activity score (DAS28), erythrocytes sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP). Fatigue was assessed with the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and serum IL-6 level was measured in patients and controls. ResultsThe BRAF-MDQ was significantly higher among patients (mean=50.6±15.2) than controls (mean=7.8±3.7) (p<0.001). Patients’ mean IL-6 serum level was 35.05±21.23 pg/ml and 4.72±3.09pg/ml among control subjects (p<0.001). DAS 28 ranged between 4.33 and 7.67, mean 1st hour ESR was 43.57mm and CRP was positive in 76.7% of patients. Significant correlations were found between BRAF-MDQ score and serum IL-6 level (r=0.947, p<0.001), ESR (r=0.509, p<0.001) as well as CRP positivity (r=0.411, p=0.005) in RA patients. Serum IL-6 level correlated with ESR (r=0.463, p<0.001) and CRP (r=0.376, p=0.01) among patients. ConclusionFatigue is a common symptom and scores higher among RA patients than healthy controls and should be measured in all RA patients with simple fatigue questionnaires matching with different cultures. Fatigue becomes more prominent as serum IL-6 level increases independently of the disease duration and activity.

Measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: A cross‐sectional study to evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi‐Dimensional questionnaire, visual analog scales, and numerical rating scales

Current patient-reported outcome measures of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have limitations, providing only a global perspective. This study constructed a questionnaire (the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire [BRAF-MDQ]) from 45 preliminary questions derived from analysis of patient interviews and surveys and explored its structure for fatigue dimensions. The BRAF-MDQ and short BRAF numerical rating scales (NRS) and visual analog scales (VAS) for severity, effect, and ability to cope with fatigue were evaluated for validity. Two hundred twenty-nine RA patients with fatigue (VAS score ≥5 of 10) completed preliminary BRAF and comparator fatigue scales. Iterative analyses informed item removal or retention in the BRAF-MDQ and identification of subscales (using Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency and factor analysis to identify dimensions). The BRAF-MDQ and short scales were tested in relation to potentially associated variables for criterion and construct validity (Spearman's correlation). The 20-item BRAF-MDQ had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.932), criterion validity (correlation with other fatigue scales: r = 0.643-0.813), and construct validity (correlations with disability, mood, helplessness, and pain: r = 0.340-0.627). Factor analysis showed 4 distinct dimensions (physical fatigue, living with fatigue, cognition fatigue, and emotional fatigue), which correlated well with the RA Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue scale (r = 0.548-0.834). The BRAF VAS and NRS showed similar criterion and construct validity. The BRAF instruments include standardized NRS and VAS for fatigue severity, effect, and coping, are RA specific, and have evidence to support validity. The BRAF-MDQ uniquely measures 4 separate dimensions, which may facilitate development of individually-tailored fatigue management programs.