Association between depression and anxiety with skin and musculoskeletal clinical phenotypes in systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: To study the clinical phenotypes, determined based on cumulative disease activity manifestations, and sociodemographic factors associated with depression and anxiety in SLE. METHODS: Patients attending a single centre were assessed for depression and anxiety. SLE clinical phenotypes were based on the organ systems of cumulative 10-year SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), prior to visit. Multivariable logistic regression analyses for depression, anxiety, and coexisting anxiety and depression were performed to study associated SLE clinical phenotypes and other factors. RESULTS: Among 341 patients, the prevalence of anxiety and depression was 34% and 27%, respectively, while 21% had coexisting anxiety and depression. Patients with skin involvement had significantly higher likelihood of anxiety compared with patients with no skin involvement [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.0]. Patients with skin involvement also had higher likelihood of having coexisting anxiety and depression (aOR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.9). Patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.5) and skin system (aOR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.04, 3.2) involvement had higher likelihood of depression compared with patients without skin or musculoskeletal involvement. Employment status and fibromyalgia at the time of the visit, and inception status were significantly associated with anxiety, depression, and coexisting anxiety and depression, respectively. CONCLUSION: SLE clinical phenotypes, specifically skin or MSK systems, along with fibromyalgia, employment and shorter disease duration were associated with anxiety or depression. Routine patient screening, especially among patients with shorter disease duration, for these associations may facilitate the diagnosis of these mental health disorders, and allow for more timely diagnosis.

Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Edmonton and Northern Alberta.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Northern Alberta estimated by health administrative data and data from a rheumatologist-based prescription database. METHODS: The study was performed using administrative health data from the province of Alberta through the local health authority. The cases and population identified in the database were reported from the year 2016. Rheumatology prescribing data was accessed through the Physician Learning Program and based on Alberta health billing data of actively practicing rheumatologists between the years 2012 and 2016. Ethics was provided by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Boards at the University of Calgary (REB 13-0459). RESULTS: The total population of the area examined was determined to be 2,086,181. The administrative health database identified 42,354 cases of RA based on their case definition with a prevalence of 2.08%. Based on rheumatologist diagnosis and prescribing data, the number of cases identified was 11,273 cases of RA with a prevalence of 0.542%. The average percentage of identified RA patients being seen by a rheumatologist was determined to be 26.7% with the range of 19.8 to 39.9%. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study compares and contrasts the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis reported by administrative data versus identification by specialists. Our study again illustrates that accuracy of case definitions when studying chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis is paramount. The results also suggest a lack of access to rheumatologist services in Northern Alberta and reiterate the need for ongoing recruitment of new rheumatologists as has been highlighted previously. Key Points • The main contribution of this paper is to compare and contrast the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis as reported by administrative data versus identification by specialists. • Our study also shows the distribution of rheumatoid arthritis in a large geographical area and illustrates a lack of access to subspecialty care in certain regions.