Neuropsychiatric Questionnaires in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

• Autor(a) principal: Tani, C
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• Outros Autores: Moraes-Fontes, MF, Carli, L, Mauri, M, Bombardieri, S, Mosca, M
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/2281
• topic: Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico; Vasculite Associada ao Lúpus do Sistema Nervoso Central; Questionários; HCC DAUTOIM

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) can be affected by a multitude of neurologic and psychiatric symptoms with a wide range of prevalence and severity. Irrespectively from attribution to SLE or other causes, neuropsychiatric (NP) symptoms strongly impact short-term and long-term outcomes,thus NP evaluation during routine clinical practice in SLE should be undertaken regularly. The assessment of NP involvement in SLE patients is challenging and the available diagnostic tools fail to guarantee optimal diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity to changes as well as feasibility in routine clinical care. Standardised questionnaires (both physician-administered and self-reported) can offer valuable help to the treating physician to capture all possible NP syndromes; few SLE-specific NP questionnaire have been developed but validation in large cohort or cross-cultural adaptations are still pending. On the other hand, general instruments have been largely applied to SLE patients. Both kinds of questionnaires can address all possible NP manifestations either globally or, more frequently, focus on specific NP symptoms. These latter have been mainly used in SLE to detect and classify mild and subtle symptoms, more likely to be overlooked during routine clinical assessment such as headache, cognitive impairment and psychiatric manifestations. In conclusion, this literature review highlights a clear case for validation studies in this area and the wider implementation of questionnaires to assess NP involvement is still warranted. The broader use of such instruments could have important consequences; first of all, by standardising symptom assessment, a better definition of the prevalence of NP manifestation across different centres could be achieved. Secondly, prospective studies could allow for the evaluation of clinical significance of mild symptoms and their impact on the patient’s function and quality of life.