Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF
CROSSMARK LOGO Buy Reprints
PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
ARTICLE IN PRESS
doi:
10.25259/IJDVL_31_20

Hindi translation and validation of quality of life score in Indian patients with epidermolysis bullosa; and its correlation with the clinical severity assessment scores: A cross-sectional study

Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
Department of Biostatistics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding author: Dr. Rahul Mahajan, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. drrahulpgi@yahoo.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Bishnoi A, Manjunath S, Kishore K, De D, Handa S, Murrell DF, et al. Hindi translation and validation of quality of life score in Indian patients with epidermolysis bullosa; and its correlation with the clinical severity assessment scores: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol, doi: 10.25259/IJDVL_31_20

Abstract

Background:

Quality of life (QoL) has not been evaluated in Indian patients having epidermolysis bullosa (EB).

Aims:

The aims of the study were to measure health-related QoL in Indian patients having EB using the quality of life in epidermolysis bullosa (QoLEB) questionnaire, and to find its correlation with clinically measured disease severity.

Methods:

In this observational cross-sectional study, the QoLEB questionnaire was translated from English to Hindi (QoLEB-Hin) and culturally adapted without a change in concept following standard guidelines. QoLEB-Hin and three clinical scores that have been independently validated in EB, that is, Birmingham Epidermolysis Bullosa severity score (BEBs), Instrument for Scoring Clinical Outcomes of Research for Epidermolysis Bullosa (iscorEB) and Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), were administered to EB patients/their parents in the presence of an expert. This was followed by validity and correlation studies.

Results:

Fifty-four patients were recruited (19-females, 35-males; median age 5 years, range 0.025–36 years and 12 patients with an age >13 years). The parents answered the questions for 42 patients (age <13 years). Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa was diagnosed in 32 (59.2%) patients (dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa [DDEB]-19 [35.2%] and recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa [RDEB]-13 [24.1%]). Junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and epidermolysis bullosa simplex (EBS) were each diagnosed in 11 (20.4%) patients. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of QoLEB-Hin score of all epidermolysis bullosa patients was 11.3 ± 7.6 (range 0–28; median and interquartile range [IQR], 10, 10) and reflected an overall moderate degree of affliction on QoL of patients. Mean ± SD of QoLEB-Hin scores for EBS, JEB, DDEB and RDEB were 5.4 ± 3.7 (range, 1–13; median and IQR, 6, 6), 11 ± 6.2 (range, 1–22; median and IQR, 10, 6), 9 ± 5.7 (range, 0–19; median and IQR, 10, 10) and 20.1 ± 6.4 (range, 12–28; median and IQR, 19, 12.5), respectively (P < 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.946 was obtained for all items indicating excellent internal consistency and reliability. Mean sample adequacy was 0.91; absolute fit based off diagonal values was 0.99; indices root mean square error of approximation and root mean square residual were 0.04 and 0.05, respectively, and Tucker Lewis index was >1 indicating overfit. The mean time taken to complete the questionnaire was 6.1 min (range, 6–8 min). QoLEB-Hin correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with BEBs (ρ = 0.79), iscorEB (ρ= 0.63) and EBDASI (ρ = 0.77). Three multiple linear regression models were used to ascertain the strength of relationship between QoL-Hin, and BEBs, iSCOREB and EBDASI, respectively, after adjusting for age, gender and disease subtype. The EBDASI clinical score accounted for approximately 74% (R2 = 0.736, P < 0.001) of the variability in QOL-Hin, as compared to 73% and 55% by BEBs (R2 = 0.731, P < 0.001) and iscorEB (R2 = 0.545, P < 0.001), respectively.

Limitations:

Parents filled out the questionnaires for many patients and probably led to an overall moderate degree of affliction of QoL. Comparison with Dermatology Life Quality Index and other QoL scores were not done in this study. Furthermore, the scoring was done at one point in time, and test-retest measurements could not be performed.

Conclusion:

This study validated QoLEB-Hin in an Indian population finding an overall moderate reduction in QoL due to EB. Maximally affected QoL was seen in patients with RDEB. Furthermore, QoLEB-Hin had a variable positive correlation and association with all clinical severity assessment scores.

Keywords

EBQoL
epidermolysis bullosa
quality of life

Plain Language Summary

The present study was carried out among patients having epidermolysis bullosa. Epidermolysis bullosa is a very rare genetic disorder which results in either dysfunction or absence of important structural proteins of human skin causing it to become fragile. Depending on the type and the depth of the structural proteins affected by this disease, there can be various subtypes including simplex, junctional and dystrophic. Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa can further be divided into recessive and dominant subtypes depending on the pattern in which the successive generations are affected. From what has been seen previously, junctional and recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa are severe subtypes. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of life in patients affected by this rare genetic disease.

This study was carried out in the pediatric dermatology clinic of a tertiary care hospital and research institute in Northern India, and 54 patients having epidermolysis bullosa were recruited. To assess the quality of life in Indian epidermolysis bullosa patients, the questionnaire previously available in English was translated into Hindi. The authors administered this questionnaire to patients or their parents. A few available clinical scores were also performed by the physicians to assess the severity of the disease. The authors found an overall moderate degree of reduction in the quality of life of their patients due to epidermolysis bullosa. Patients having recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa had maximal negative impact on their quality of life. The authors also found that reduction in the quality of life had a positive correlation with the disease severity as assessed by the clinical severity assessment scores.

Introduction

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a rare inherited mechanobullous disorder with multiple types and subtypes. These subtypes vary broadly in their clinical manifestations and severity. In patients having junctional and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, and some variants of EB simplex, the disease often runs a chronic course. This leads to significant morbidity and socio-economic burden for the patient and the family alike.1,2 Therefore, it is of importance to ascertain health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among the patients with EB and their families.

There were initial attempts to evaluate QoL among EB patients using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and other HRQoL scores.3,4 However, gross variations in the clinical phenotypes of EB coupled with ceiling effects and content validity issues in these scoring tools made HRQoL measurements difficult among EB patients. Subsequently, Frew et al. developed and validated an EB -specific HRQoL measurement tool that could be used across all EB subtypes (quality of life in epidermolysis bullosa [QoLEB]).5 The present study aimed to produce a “regional translation (Hindi)” of QoLEB to measure the QoL in Indian EB patients and correlate QoL (a patient’s perspective) with clinical severity assessment scores (a physician’s perspective).

Methods

Study site and population

This observational cross-sectional study was planned and performed in the pediatric dermatology clinic of postgraduate institute of medical education and research, Chandigarh, India. After the conception of this study, an EB registry was formulated in our department, and all subsequent patients presenting with EB were enrolled in the said registry. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institute’s Ethical Committee before recruiting patients for this study.

Recruitment and design

This was an observational cross-sectional study that was carried out from June 2016 to July 2018.

Inclusion criteria were:

  1. Patients having EB (all age groups)

  2. Native speakers of Hindi language (patients and/or parents).

The patients were classified into four main EB subtypes: epidermolysis bullosa simplex (EBS), junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB), dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DDEB) and recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), using clinical diagnostic matrix,6 immunofluorescence antigen mapping and/or electron microscopy. Written consent was obtained from all participants. Parents consented for patients aged <18 years; though an assent was also obtained from children aged 13–18 years as per Indian Council of Medical Research guidelines.7

Study measurement tools

The English version of QoLEB is a validated EB specific HRQoL tool consisting of a 17-item questionnaire, and measures two factors: functioning (questions 1–7, 9–10, 12–13 and 15) and emotions (question 8, 11, 14, 16–17).5 For each question, four optional answers exist that are scored from 0 to 3 points (0: Not at all, (1) A little, (2) A lot and (3) very much; of least to the most impact). The total score ranges from 0 to 51 points (“functioning” scale ranges from 0 to 36, “emotions” scale ranges from 0 to 15). A higher score represents a worse HRQoL in EB. Recently proposed grading for the stratification of the overall measurement of QoLEB is as follows: very mild (0–4 points), mild (5–9 points), moderate (10–19 points), severe (20–34 points) and very severe (35–51 points).

Three clinical severity scores – Birmingham Epidermolysis Bullosa severity score (BEBs),8 Instrument for Scoring Clinical Outcomes of Research for Epidermolysis Bullosa (iscorEB),9,10 and Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI)11,12 have been independently developed and validated to ascertain the disease severity. Required permissions were obtained before the use of these assessment tools for the present study.

Study procedures

The study was performed in three phases.

  1. The first step involved translation of the English version of QoLEB into Hindi, that is, QoLEB-Hin. India has an extremely rich and diverse culture with no national language, though 22 languages have been granted official status. Hindi is the most frequently spoken language in India and was therefore chosen for the present study. Forward translation of the QoLEB to Hindi was performed by an independent qualified translator. Back-translation to English was performed by a different independent qualified translator and reviewed by the original author of the instrument to ensure that the translated QoLEB-Hin conveyed a similar meaning to that of the QoLEB. Subsequently, these forward and back translations were discussed by experts in EB (RM and SH), who were bilingual (native speakers in Hindi and fluent in English), to ascertain the content validity. Hindi version of QoLEB was the exact translation and had no conceptual change (no questions were added or removed from the original questionnaire)13,14

  2. In the second phase, consenting patients and/ or parents were requested to complete and return QoLEB-Hin questionnaires. An experienced physician (SM) administered BEBs, iscorEB and EBDASI on the same day to assess the disease severity of the patients. Further, reliability and factorial validity for QoLEB-Hin were determined at this stage

  3. In the third phase, the correlation between QoLEBHin and clinical severity scores, namely, BEBs, iscorEB and EBDASI was ascertained.

Statistical analysis

Construct validity was assessed by Exploratory Factor Analysis using generalized least squares techniques. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criterion was used to assess the measure of sampling adequacy. Factor selection was carried out using Very Simple Structure (VSS), scree plot and eigenvalue criterion to observe any discrepancy due to a different selection criterion. Absolute fit indices verify how well a model fits or reproduces the data. Absolute fit indices include root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and root mean square residual (RMSR). The RMSEA and RMSR values range from 0 to 1 with smaller values closer to 0.05 indicating better model fit. Tucker Lewis index (TLI) is a relative fit index with values over 0.90 considered acceptable. The reliability and internal consistency of the QOLEB-Hin were measured using Cronbach alpha (α). Data quality was assessed using the corrected item-to-total correlation which should exceed >0.3 for each item. The floor and ceiling effect for the individual items was considered when ≥80% of the participants scored the lowest or highest possible scores. The respondent burden was assessed by the self-reported completion time for the QOLEB-Hin and was considered brief if <15 min.

Means and standard deviations (SD) were calculated and reported for all study measurement tools. Box-whisker plots were used to demonstrate the scores measured across different EB subgroups. The discriminative validity and multiple comparisons were calculated between four main epidermolysis bullosa subtypes (EBS, JEB, DDEB and RDEB) using a Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA). Subsequently, post hoc tests were carried out using Bonferroni corrections to find the significant difference between groups. Assessment of correlation and convergent validity between QoLEB-Hin and clinical severity assessment scores, that is, BEBs, iscorEB and EBDASI was performed using matrix plots and was demonstrated using Spearman correlation coefficient rho (ρ). Multiple linear regression (MLR) using ordinary least squares was employed to determine the strength of relationship between QoLEB-Hin and the change in clinical severity scores. These scores were adjusted for important confounders with P < 0.10 to be included in the MLR model.

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version IBM SPSS Statistics, Chicago, USA and the https://personality-project.org/r/psych/ in https://www.r-project.org/. A two-tailed P ≤ 0.05 except for post hoc tests (≤0.008) was considered to declare statistically significant results.

Results

Study population

Fifty-four patients were recruited in the study (19 females and 35 males). The mean age of the study group was 7.6 ± 8.8 years (median 5, IQR 11.22, range 0.025–36 years). Twelve patients were aged >13 years; three were aged 18 years and four were aged >18 years. The parents answered the questionnaire for 42 (77.7%) patients, the rest responded for themselves (age >13 years, 22.3%). A diagnosis of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa was offered in 32 (59.2%) patients. Of these 32, 19 (35.2%) were diagnosed as DDEB, while 13 (24.1%) were diagnosed as RDEB. JEB and EBS were each diagnosed in 11 (20.4%) patients each.

Validation of QoLEB-Hin

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.946 was obtained for all items indicating excellent internal consistency and reliability. KMO demonstrated mean sample adequacy of 0.91. VSS complexity achieved a maximum of 0.94 with 1 factor and 0.95 with 2 factors. Absolute fit based off diagonal values was 0.99; indices RMSEA and RMSR were 0.04 and 0.05, respectively, and TLI was >1 indicating overfit. Table 1 shows a comparison between the psychometric properties of the present score and the QoLEB-E score.

Table 1:: A comparison of the psychometric properties between QoLEB-Hin and QoLEB-E
Psychometric properties QoLEB-Hin (Present study) QoLEB-E5, original score
Content validity Acceptable, addressed through appropriate forward and back translation, and review by bilingual experts Produced through item generation
Data quality Corrected item-to-total correlation≥0.5 -
Construct validity Cronbach’s alpha 0.946 0.92
Convergent validity Correlation done with clinical severity measurement tools (rho, the coefficient of correlation) being 0.79 with BEBs, P<0.001 Correlation done with dermatology life quality index (rho 0.77)
rho 0.63 with iscorEB, P<0.001 Stanford health assessment questionnaire for mobility (rho 0.78)
rho 0.77 with EBDASI, P<0.001 Hospital anxiety and depression scale, rho 0.57 and 0.58 with anxiety and depression, respectively
Discriminative validity P<0.001 (Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA) P<0.01
Internal consistency and reliability Cronbach’s alpha 0.946 0.922

BEBs: Birmingham epidermolysis bullosa severity score, iscorEB: Instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa, EBDASI: Epidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index, QoLEB-Hin: Quality of life in EB-Hindi score, QoLEB: Quality of life in EB-English score

QoLEB-Hin scoring in our patients

The mean ± SD QoLEB-Hin score of our cohort was 11.3 ± 7.6 (range 0–28; median and IQR, 10, 10) and reflected an overall moderate degree of affliction on QoL of patients. Mean ± SD QoLEB-Hin scores in EBS, JEB, DDEB and RDEB subgroups were 5.4 ± 3.7 (range, 1–13; median and IQR, 6, 6), 11 ± 6.2 (range, 1–22; median and IQR, 10, 6), 9 ± 5.7 (range, 0–19; median and IQR, 10, 10) and 20.1 ± 6.4 (range, 12–28; median and IQR, 19, 12.5), respectively [Figure 1 and Table 2], P < 0.001, Kruskal– Wallis ANOVA.

Figure 1.: Box-whisker plots demonstrating the BEBs (1a), iscorEB (1b), EBDASI (1c) and QoLEB-Hin (1d) scores, and significant differences across the 4 subtypes of epidermolysis bullosa (BEBs- Birmingham epidermolysis bullosa severity score, iscorEB- instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa, EBDASI- epidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index, QoLEB-Hin – quality of life in EB-Hindi score, EB- Epidermolysis bullosa, EB simplex - blue colour, Junctional EB - orange colour, Dominant dystrophic EB- grey colour, and Recessive dystrophic EB- amber colour; SD-Standard deviation, IQR- Interquartile range; *p<0.008, **p<0.001, horizontal lines inside the boxes represent the medians, and x signs represent the means).
Table 2:: Clinical severity measurement and QoLEB-Hin scores in individual EB subtypes
Score Total (n = 54) EBS (n = 11) JEB (n = 11) DDEB (n = 19) RDEB (n = 13)
Mean
(SD)
Range Median
(IQR)
Mean
(SD)
Range Median
(IQR)
Mean
(SD)
Range Median
(IQR)
Mean
(SD)
Range Median
(IQR)
Mean
(SD)
Range Median
(IQR)
QoLEB-Hin 11.33 (7.63) 0–28 10 (10) 5.36 (3.75) 1–13 6 (6) 11 (6.18) 1–22 10 (6) 9.0 (5.72) 0–19 10 (10) 20.08 (6.36) 12–28 19 (12.5)
BEBs 14.98 (13.37) 0.5–64 13 (17) 4.45 (4.04) 0.5–14 4 (5) 14.09 (9.68) 2–28 18 (18) 11.40 (7.15) 1.9–26 8 (13.6) 29.87 (16.06) 14–64 25.25 (18.12)
iscorEB 39.7 (23.5) 0.5–88 39.7 (40.5) 19.31 (14.14) 0.5–42 14 (26) 41.64 (27.33) 10–86 46 (44) 41.06 (22.8) 8.6–88 38 (44) 53.33 (16.80) 26–78.6 50 (30.15)
EBDASI 45.76 (39.78) 3–141 36 (64.5) 14.64 (13.86) 3–44 10 (16) 41.36 (37.1) 4–120 36 (56) 40.95 (33.09) 4–124 30 (62) 82.85 (40.09) 22–141 91 (73.5)

BEBs: Birmingham epidermolysis bullosa severity score, iscorEB: Instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa, EBDASI: Epidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index, QoLEB-Hin: Quality of life in EB-Hindi score, QoLEB: Quality of life in EB-English score, EB: Epidermolysis bullosa, EBS: EB simplex, JEB: Junctional EB, DDEB: Dominant dystrophic EB, RDEB: Recessive dystrophic EB, SD: Standard deviation, IQR: Interquartile range

Overall, a very mild, mild, moderate and severe affliction of QoL was seen in 10 (18.5%), 14 (25.9%), 22 (40.7%) and 8 (14.9%) patients, respectively. The mean ± SD QoLEBHinscore for females 12.7 ± 8.9 (range, 0–28; median and IQR, 11, 13) was higher than males 10.6 ± 6.9 (range, 0–27; median and IQR, 10, 9), but not significantly different (P = 0.342). Furthermore, there was an inverse correlation between age and QoLEB-Hin scoring (Spearman rho -0.19), though not significant (P = 0.163). The mean time taken to complete the QoLEB-Hin questionnaire was 6.1 min (range, 6–8 min).

The clinical severity assessment scores

Mean ± SD values of BEBs, iscorEB and EBDASI scores for our cohort were 15 ± 13.4 (range 0.5–64; median and IQR, 13, 17), 39.7 ± 23.5 (range 0.5–88; median and IQR, 39.7, 40.5) and 45.8 ± 39.8 (3–141; median and IQR, 36, 64.5), respectively. The values of clinical severity measurement tools in individual disease subtypes are summarized in box plots in Figure 1 and Table 2.

Multiple comparisons

Bonferroni post hoc test for multiple comparisons demonstrated significant disease severity and QoL affliction in RDEB [Figure 1].

The correlation among QoLEB-Hin and clinical severity assessment scores [Figure 2, matrix plots].

Figure 2:: Matrix plots showing correlation amongst QoLEB-Hin and clinical severity assessment tools (BEBs – Birmingham epidermolysis bullosa severity score, iscorEB – instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa, EBDASI – epidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index, QoL – quality of life in EB-Hindi score)

QoLEB-Hin correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with clinical severity scores measured by BEBs (ρ 0.79), iscorEB (ρ 0.63) and EBDASI (ρ 0.77).

Regression analysis

Three MLR models were used to ascertain the strength of relationship between QoL-Hin, and BEBs, iSCOREB and EBDASI, respectively, after adjusting for age, gender and disease subtype. The EBDASI clinical score accounted for approximately 74% (R2 = 0.736, P < 0.001) of the variability in QOL-Hin, as compared to 73% and 55% by BEBs (R2 = 0.731, P < 0.001) and iscorEB (R2 = 0.545, P < 0.001), respectively.

Discussion

Assessment of QoL helps to measure the morbidity and impact of a disease perceived by the patient and his family members. EB is a complex hereditary disease with an overwhelming psychosocial component. Therefore, a comparison of the baseline and subsequent values can reflect on the overall benefits of the multi-modality treatments provided to the patients. Furthermore, a more objective and meaningful comparison of the QoL scores and clinical severity assessment tools shall be possible, if these would correlate and agree well with each other. QoLEB was initially developed in English and has since been translated and validated in several languages.5,14-17 Translation and validation in other languages have the potential to provide reliable comparisons of HRQoL in EB across different ethnicities, especially while performing multicenter and cross-cultural research.

No language has been granted the status of the national language in India, but many have been provided the status of official language. Hindi has been granted the status of first, second, third, fourth and fifth language in 11, 8, 7, 1 and 4 states and union territories, respectively. Further, 57.1% of total Indian population could speak Hindi with 43.6% of total population speaking it as their first language.18-20 For the purpose of the present study, it seemed reasonable to translate QoLEB-English questionnaire to Hindi to have a regional translation of QoLEB (QoLEB-Hin) that could be understood by majority of the regional population. We further quantified the disease severity of these patients using previously validated clinical severity assessment scores and studied their correlation with QoLEB-Hin scores. The QoLEB-Hin score had an excellent construct and discriminative validity; and internal consistency and reliability. The average time taken to complete this questionnaire was 6.14 min.

A recent study has compared QoLEB (Romania) with EBDASI and found a significant correlation between the two.21 We performed the clinical severity assessment of our patients using all three validated tools, BEBs, iscorEB and EBDASI. Initial univariate analysis using Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA and multiple comparisons revealed maximum affliction of QoL in patients having RDEB, followed by those having JEB. The same was demonstrated on a robust MLR, and QoL seemed to be significantly dependent on the disease subtype, as well as the values of all clinical severity assessment tools (BEBs, EBDASI and iSCOREB). Importantly, few patients in DDEB subgroup scored 0 signifying no impact on QoL (e.g., children with isolated anonychia affecting toes). QoLEB scores for JEB and DDEB were comparable and could be explained by less severe phenotype of disease in our JEB cohort.

An important secondary aim of the present study was to see if any one clinical severity assessment score correlated better with the QoL than the others. However, in the absence of a gold standard, it was difficult to directly compare the three clinical severity assessment scores (we tried using Bland Altman score; data not shown). Therefore, we have presented data in the form of individual correlations between QoL and each clinical assessment score. All clinical scores (BEBs, iscorEB and EBDASI) showed a statistically significant correlation with QoLEB-Hin.

In our patients, the top three questions that contributed maximally to the final QoLEB-Hin score were question number 3 (pain), 7 (involvement in sports) and 1 (inability to move around at home). No significant correlation was seen between QoLEB-Hin, and age or gender of the subjects.

Limitations

  1. Genetic diagnosis was not done in this patient cohort

  2. Thirty-five patients were <13 years (including newborns), necessitating the need for the parents to fill the questionnaires which might not provide a true reflection of the patient’s QoL, and thus explaining an overall moderate QoL score

  3. Comparison with DLQI and other QoL scores was not done

  4. The scoring was performed at one point in time, and test-retest measurements could not be performed

  5. We were not able to fill QoLEB and QoLEB-Hin simultaneously in bilingual patients

  6. Future studies can focus on formulating a pictorial score specific for smaller children, and attempts have already been initiated in this direction.22

Strengths

Regional translation and validation of QoLEB in a Hindi speaking population makes for better understanding of the disease burden in Indian patients and establishing its correlation with all three available disease severity assessment tools in Indian patients. Another strength of the present study was that the majority of the participants (77.7%) were children <14 years of age. Many of the previous works on this aspect had either more adult patients or an equal proportion of both adults and children. EB is predominantly a disease of childhood; and the majority of the phenotypes, especially the more severe ones present in childhood itself.23 An adequate representation from all disease subtypes (especially 11 patients with JEB) adds to the generalizability of the present work.

Conclusion

This study validated regional Hindi translation of QoLEB in an Indian population finding an overall moderate reduction in QoL due to EB. Furthermore, QoLEB-Hin had a variable positive association with disease subtypes and all clinical severity assessment scores (providing objective evidence that the impact on the QoL varied with the severity of disease affliction in different EB subtypes).

Acknowledgment

We thank the Australasian Blistering Diseases Foundation for granting us the permission for the usage of the QoLEB and EBDASI scores.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Glossary of terms

BEBs- Birmingham epidermolysis bullosa severity score, DDEB- dominant dystrophic Epidermolysis bullosa, EB- Epidermolysis bullosa, EBS- EB simplex, EBDASIepidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index, GLS = Generalized least squares; iscorEB- instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa, IQR- Interquartile range, JEB- junctional EB, MinRes = Minimal residual solution using unweighted least squares; QoLEB-Hin – quality of life in EB-Hindi score, QoLEB – quality of life in EB-English score, RDEB-recessive dystrophic EB, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMSR = root mean square residual; SD- Standard deviation, TLI= Tucker Lewis Index of factor reliability.

References

  1. , , , . Impact of inherited epidermolysis bullosa on parental interpersonal relationships, marital status and family size. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:1009-14.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , et al. Family burden in epidermolysis bullosa is high independent of disease type/subtype. Acta Derm Venereol. 2010;90:607-11.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Quality of life in epidermolysis bullosa. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2002;27:707-10.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , et al. Quality of life in patients with epidermolysis bullosa. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:869-77.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , . Quality of life evaluation in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) through the development of the QOLEB questionnaire: An EB-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:1323-30.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , et al. Development of a clinical diagnostic matrix for characterizing inherited epidermolysis bullosa. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176:1624-32.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . An analysis of India's 2017 national ethical guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants: The social and behavioural sciences aspect. Indian J Med Ethics. 2018;3:204-9.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . The birmingham epidermolysis bullosa severity score: Development and validation. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160:1057-65.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , et al. Instrument for scoring clinical outcome of research for epidermolysis bullosa: A consensus-generated clinical research tool. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:41-52.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , et al. Reliability and validity of the instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa (iscorEB) Br J Dermatol. 2018;178:1128-34.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , et al. The epidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index (EBDASI): Grading disease severity and assessing responsiveness to clinical change in epidermolysis bullosa. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:692-8.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , et al. Development, reliability, and validity of a novel epidermolysis bullosa disease activity and scarring index (EBDASI) J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:89-97.e1-13.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11:509-21.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the quality of life evaluation in epidermolysis bullosa instrument in Brazilian portuguese. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:e94-9.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. , . Improving clinical applications of quality of life scores in epidermolysis bullosa: Defining clinically significant outcomes in the QOLEB questionnaire. Mucosa. 2019;2:68-75.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , . Health-related quality of life in epidermolysis bullosa: Validation of the dutch QOLEB questionnaire and assessment in the dutch population. Acta Derm Venereol. 2014;94:442-7.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , . Measuring quality of life in epidermolysis bullosa in Mexico: Cross-cultural validation of the hispanic version of the quality of life in epidermolysis bullosa questionnaire. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:652-3.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Indian States by Most Spok, Sched, Lang. . Available from: https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/indian_states_by_most_spoken_scheduled_languages [Last accessed on 2020 Aug 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. The Official Languages Act. . Available from: https://www.meity.gov.in/content/official-language-act [Last accessed on 2020 Aug 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Correlation between disease severity and quality of life in patients with epidermolysis bullosa. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33:e217-9.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , , . Epidermolysis bullosa-specific module of the infants and toddlers dermatology quality of life (InToDermQoL) questionnaire. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33:612-7.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , , , et al. Assessment of the timing of milestone clinical events in patients with epidermolysis bullosa from North America. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:196-203.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections