4.7 Article

Influence of disease activity on the physical activity of rheumatoid arthritis patients

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 722-731

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket422

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; physical activity; accelerometry; IPAQ; disability

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health (Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias) [FIS: 09/02209, FIS PI12/02499]
  2. European Regional Development Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods. A group of 50 RA patients, without lower limb clinical disease, and 50 age- and sex-matched healthy controls were included in this cross-sectional study. PA was assessed by accelerometry and with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). We performed multiple regression analysis not only to compare PA between groups, but also to explore the relation between RA features, including disease activity and cardiovascular risk parameters, and PA. In a randomized group of 30 RA patients a test-retest study was carried out in order to determine the correlation between variations in disease activity and PA. Results. The number of minutes of moderate and vigorous activity per day, as evaluated by accelerometry, was significantly lower in RA patients than in healthy controls. In RA patients, accelerometry and IPAQ demonstrated concordance to a moderate degree [quadratic weighed kappa index 0.27 (0.06-0.48), P = 0.02]. HAQ negatively correlated with both IPAQ and accelerometry data. The 28-joint DAS using CRP (DAS28-CRP) was also inversely related with IPAQ. Framingham score and metabolic syndrome were inversely associated with PA in RA patients. Interestingly, variations in PA by accelerometry inversely correlated with changes in RA disease activity (r = -0.42, P = 0.02). Conclusion. In RA patients, accelerometry is a reliable technique to evaluate PA. This study not only showed that RA patients spend less time doing moderate and vigorous PA than healthy controls, but also PA, as assessed by accelerometry, was sensitive to any changes in disease activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据