Skip to main content
Download PDF

Quality of life and subjective symptom impact in Japanese patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1

BMC Neurology volume 22, Article number: 55 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Although functional impairment in patients with myotonic dystrophy is an important determinant of the quality of life (QoL), patients’ subjective evaluation of their symptoms may also affect their QoL. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between subjective symptom impact and the QoL of patients with myotonic dystrophy, after controlling for functional impairment.

Methods

Eligible patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) were recruited from four hospitals in Japan. The subjective symptom impact of four symptoms (muscle weakness, fatigue, pain, and myotonia) and overall QoL were evaluated using the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) questionnaire. Functional impairment was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale.

Results

Seventy-seven patients with DM1 were included in this study. Overall QoL was significantly associated with subjective symptom impact of muscular weakness, fatigue, pain, myotonia, swallowing difficulty, and droopy eyelids. In the regression models, disease duration (beta = 0.11) and moderate to severe functional impairment (beta = 0.33) explained a significant part of the overall QoL. Furthermore, muscular weakness, fatigue, and myotonia significantly explained additional variance of the overall QoL (beta = 0.17–0.43).

Conclusions

Subjective symptom impact and functional impairment are independent features influencing the QoL of Japanese patients with DM1.

Peer Review reports

Background

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is the most common muscular dystrophy in adults, and is characterized by various symptoms, including progressive muscular weakness, fatigue, and myotonia [1]. These symptoms often affect patients’ lives, including daily activities and social participation, which in turn negatively affect the quality of life (QoL) [2, 3]. Generally, symptom severity is considered the strongest predictor of patients’ QoL [4]. Functional impairment is one of the major factors that affect activities of daily living and social participation in neuromuscular disorders; however, cognitive, psychosocial, and subjective factors also strongly contribute to QoL [5,6,7,8]. As illustrated by the disability paradox, patients with severe disability do not necessarily experience worse QoL, which highlights the influence of one’s personal disability experience [9, 10]. Such phenomenon suggests that subjective experience of a disorder, including estimation of symptoms by patients and psychological adjustment, may be an essential factor of their QoL [11]. Most validated QoL measures, including the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), are generic measures used in people with various conditions [12]. Whereas generic measures are useful to evaluate QoL in comparison to general population, disease-specific measures (e.g., Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life [INQoL] questionnaire) have advantages to capture experience in individuals with muscular dystrophies [2, 13].

Recently, patient-reported outcomes have increasingly been considered important in clinical trials [2, 14]. Although the symptom severity has been well studied for neuromuscular disorders, the impact of patients’ subjective assessment of difficulties in activities and participation and the perceived importance of these difficulties on their QoL has not been well investigated. Furthermore, the assessment of symptoms by a clinician and subjective evaluation of symptoms by patients may differ [15]. Therefore, patients’ QoL could be affected by their subjective evaluation of symptom severity, limitations in activities, and restrictions on participation associated with muscular diseases [16, 17]. Consequently, even for patients experiencing symptoms of similar severity, QoL may differ depending on the restrictions experienced and the perceived importance of these activities and participation. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that subjective symptom impact will contribute to QoL even after controlling for functional impairment in Japanese patients with DM1.

Methods

Participants

Patients were recruited from four hospitals in Japan (Osaka Toneyama Medical Center, Aomori National Hospital, Osaka University Hospital, and Yokohama Rosai Hospital). The eligibility criteria for patients were a genetic diagnosis of DM1, being aged ≥18 years, and provision of informed consent after the procedures had been fully explained. Since the data were collected as part of a larger study, some of the data included in the analysis overlapped with those from our previous study [18]. The CTG repeat length of the patients, measured by several commercial laboratories, was obtained from the hospitals’ electronic medical records. The laboratories employed Southern blot hybridization of restriction-enzyme-digested genomic DNA that was extracted from the patients’ blood. Therefore, the modal allele or the median of the smear range was used in statistical analyses.

Ethics, consent, and permissions

Informed consent was obtained from all patients who participated in this study. This study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Osaka University Clinical Research Review Committee (no. 14480).

Measures

Subjective symptom impact and QoL

The subjective burden of symptoms and QoL were measured using the Japanese version of the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) [18, 19]. The INQoL was developed through qualitative and quantitative studies of neuromuscular diseases, including DM1. The measure includes common symptoms of neuromuscular diseases, i.e., muscular weakness, pain, fatigue, myotonia, droopy eyelids, double vision, and swallowing difficulty. Each symptom is evaluated on three scales: severity of the symptom, difficulties caused by the symptom, and the perceived importance of the difficulties caused by the symptom. Symptom scores range from 0 to 100, and indicate subjective impact of each symptoms. A higher score indicates greater symptom impact.

The QoL index consisted of the life domain scales of the INQoL, which also includes independence, social relationships, emotions, and body image, apart from symptom scales. The subjective symptoms and life domain scores are independent indices. Thus, the QoL index represents a patient’s overall QoL on a scale from 0 to 100, which was calculated by the above four QoL aspects. A higher score is indicative of worse QoL.

Functional impairment

We assessed functional impairment using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) [20], which has previously been used as an index of functional impairment in neuromuscular disorders [18, 21, 22]. The functional impairment was evaluated by each patient’s primary physician, with scores on the mRS ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 5 (severe disability).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.4.1 statistical software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Associations between subjective symptom impact and QoL were evaluated using Spearman rank correlation coefficient because the symptom scores were positively skewed.

Based on the existing studies [23, 24], we included the four symptoms measured by the INQoL, i.e., weakness, fatigue, pain, and myotonia, in the regression models. The two-step model was tested with Gaussian distribution of the response variable (overall QoL) and identity link function. Step 1 was tested with demographic (sex, age, and years of education) and clinical variables (disease duration, the number of the CTG repeats, and functional impairment) as explanatory variables. Step 2 was tested with step 1 and four subjective symptom measures as explanatory variables. In addition, we examined another model including all seven symptoms for exploratory purpose. The mRS score was dichotomized to mild functional impairment (0) for scores 0–2 and moderate to severe functional impairment (1) for scores of 3–5 based on a previous study [21] and included as a dummy-coded variable. We used the Q-Q plot to confirm the assumption that the residuals of the regression were normally distributed. In the multiple regression analysis, we also calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess potential multicollinearity between predictor variables, where a VIF > 10 was indicative of multicollinearity between predictors, and a VIF of 5–10 suggested a multicollinearity problem. The model’s goodness-of-fit was measured using Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 and Akaike information criterion (AIC) of the generalized linear models. The significance level was set at a two-tailed p < 0.05.

Results

Seventy-seven patients with genetically confirmed DM1 were included in this study (Table 1). The overall QoL was significantly correlated to patients’ subjective symptom impact, except for double vision (p = 0.062) (Table 2). Functional impairment was also moderately correlated with QoL (rho = 0.51 [95% CI: 0.32, 0.66], p < 0.001).

Table 1 Demographic and clinical variables of the patients
Full size table
Table 2 Spearman’s correlation coefficients (95% CI) between subjective symptom impact and overall QoL
Full size table

Demographic and clinical variables were entered into Model 1, and overall QoL was significantly explained by disease duration and functional impairment (Table 3). Longer disease duration and moderate to severe functional impairment are associated with lower QoL (Table 3). The subjective symptom impact was then added as an explanatory variable (Model 2), and the subjective impact of weakness, fatigue and myotonia explained a significant proportion of the variance in overall QoL, even after controlling for demographic variables and functional impairment (Table 3). Higher subjective symptom impacts of weakness, fatigue, and myotonia were associated with lower QoL. The Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 that reflects explained variance in the overall QoL was high in Model 2. The AIC also supported the better fit of the model. VIF values for multicollinearity were not greater than the threshold in both Models 1 and 2 (VIF < 3.0).

Table 3 Associations between explanatory variables and overall QoL in DM1
Full size table

When we included all seven symptoms of the INQoL for exploratory purpose (i.e., weakness, pain, fatigue, myotonia, droopy eyelids, double vision, and swallowing difficulty), the significant explanatory variables were the same as shown in Table 3. The remaining three symptom scores did not significantly explain the additional variance of QoL when we added all subjective symptom variables to Model 2 (droopy eyelids: p = 0.43; double vision: p = 0.68; swallowing difficulty: p = 0.79).

Discussion

The subjective symptom impact explained a significant proportion of the overall QoL among patients with DM1, after controlling for demographic variables and functional impairment. Our findings are consistent with those of previous studies, which reported the association of disease duration and functional impairment with QoL [25,26,27]; however, the relative contribution of these variables was limited when subjective symptom impact was explained. In fact, a substantial variance in QoL was explained by patients’ subjective evaluation of the burden caused by muscular weakness, fatigue, and myotonia. Of these subjective factors, muscle weakness was the strongest predictor of QoL among the symptoms examined in this study.

Most subjective symptom impacts were moderately to strongly associated with overall QoL measured by the INQoL. Most activities of daily living were strongly affected by muscle weakness in patients with neuromuscular diseases, which naturally worsens QoL, and fatigue and myotonia were associated with social participation and daily activities [28]. In contrast, the correlation between double vision and QoL was weak and not significant in this study. This may be because it was the least frequent symptom among those evaluated in the INQoL, consistent with a previous report [23].

Because QoL is a subjective phenomenon, patients’ evaluation of symptoms constitutes an important part of QoL, in addition to the objective assessment of disease severity [2, 3]. Further, the subjective evaluation of the symptom impact may also differ by symptoms [28]. The regression models showed that subjective symptom impact of muscular weakness, fatigue, and myotonia explained additional variance in QoL even after controlling for demographic and clinical variables and functional impairment. The results showed that the subjective symptom impact of these domains uniquely contributed to patients’ QoL, suggesting the relative importance of these symptoms in understanding QoL in patients with DM1. Thus, reducing the burden of these symptoms is an important target for interventions to improve QoL in patients with myotonic dystrophy. In contrast to previous studies [23, 29], here, the CTG repeat length was not associated with overall QoL and symptoms. The discrepancy in the results may be caused by differences in the methods used to measure the repeat length and ambiguity in the CTG repeat length measurements caused by somatic mosaicism. In addition, the age-related expansion of the repeat length, which is due to somatic instability confounding with patient’s age, also influence the estimation of the measurements. Such characteristics may weaken the relationship between CTG repeat and overall QoL in the current study.

Our study suggests the significant effects of subjective symptom impact on QoL among patients with DM1, which might account for the disparity between objective disease severity progression and QoL that has been reported in a few longitudinal studies [11, 30, 31]. It is possible that QoL and symptom impact could be influenced by a response shift phenomenon, which is defined as a change in internal standards [3, 32]. Patients’ perceived impact of a disease is an important mediator of QoL, which may explain the noted variation in QoL among patients with symptoms of similar severity. In fact, disease perception is one of the determinants of psychological distress and/or coping [7, 33]. Therefore, although definitive evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to improve disease perception in patients with muscular diseases is unavailable [34], it is plausible that psychosocial interventions could optimize QoL in these patients [35, 36]. A large international study demonstrated that cognitive behavior therapy for patients with myotonic dystrophy improved physical activity and participation, but it did not improve their QoL and disease burden [37]. Although such results were affected by the fact that the intervention did not focus on subjective disease burden and QoL, more direct interventions may be needed [35].

In summary, our findings indicate that subjective symptom impact and functional impairment are independent features associated with QoL among Japanese patients with DM1.

Limitations

The limitations of our study should be acknowledged. First, although the INQoL covers the major components of QoL for patients with DM1, other contributing factors could affect QoL. Recently, the Myotonic Dystrophy Health Index, which measures the burden of disease in myotonic dystrophy, has been validated in several languages [36, 38,39,40]. The INQoL is a measure of how disease symptoms affect the patient’s perspective of their disease burden [18, 19]. Thus, combining the two instruments may be desirable to determine patients’ subjective experiences of the disease better. Second, we could not examine environmental factors, such as social and welfare support, that could affect patients’ QoL; these factors are known to affect patients’ QoL [6]. Third, cognitive impairment, disease awareness, and apathy, which are associated with disease severity, may have partially moderated the associations between subjective evaluation of disease impact and QoL [15, 41, 42]. Lastly, the QoL measures developed using item response theory or Rasch models, such as Quality of Life in Genetic Neuromuscular Disease Questionnaire [43, 44], would be more appropriate to obtain precise estimates for these associations.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy constraints relating to the ethical approval but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

DM1:

myotonic dystrophy type 1

INQoL:

Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life

mRS:

modified Rankin scale

QoL:

Quality of life

References

  1. Turner C, Hilton-Jones D. The myotonic dystrophies: diagnosis and management. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(4):358–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.158261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bann CM, Abresch RT, Biesecker B, Conway KC, Heatwole C, Peay H, et al. Measuring quality of life in muscular dystrophy. Neurology. 2015;84(10):1034–42. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Burns TM, Graham CD, Rose MR, Simmons Z. Quality of life and measures of quality of life in patients with neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve. 2012;46(1):9–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Graham CD, Rose MR, Grunfeld EA, Kyle SD, Weinman J. A systematic review of quality of life in adults with muscle disease. J Neurol. 2011;258(9):1581–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-011-6062-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bos I, Wynia K, Almansa J, Drost G, Kremer B, Kuks J. The prevalence and severity of disease-related disabilities and their impact on quality of life in neuromuscular diseases. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(14):1676–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1446188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gagnon C, Mathieu J, Jean S, Laberge L, Perron M, Veillette S, et al. Predictors of disrupted social participation in myotonic dystrophy type 1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(7):1246–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Graham CD, Weinman J, Sadjadi R, Chalder T, Petty R, Hanna MG, et al. A multicentre postal survey investigating the contribution of illness perceptions, coping and optimism to quality of life and mood in adults with muscle disease. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(5):508–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215513511340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Natterlund B, Ahlstrom G. Activities of daily living and quality of life in persons with muscular dystrophy. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(5):206–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(8):977–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00411-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(11):1531–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00047-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Peric S, Vujnic M, Dobricic V, Marjanovic A, Basta I, Novakovic I, et al. Five-year study of quality of life in myotonic dystrophy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2016;134(5):346–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12549.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00081-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Symonds T, Campbell P, Randall JA. A review of muscle- and performance-based assessment instruments in DM1. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(1):78–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Symonds T, Randall JA, Campbell P. Review of patient-reported outcome measures for use in myotonic dystrophy type 1 patients. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(1):86–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baldanzi S, Bevilacqua F, Lorio R, Volpi L, Simoncini C, Petrucci A, et al. Disease awareness in myotonic dystrophy type 1: an observational cross-sectional study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-016-0417-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ahlstrom G, Sjoden PO. Coping with illness-related problems and quality of life in adult individuals with muscular dystrophy. J Psychosom Res. 1996;41(4):365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Geirdal AO, Lund-Petersen I, Heiberg A. Understanding the experience of myotonic dystrophy. Mixed method study. J Genet Couns. 2015;24(1):169–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9752-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Fujino H, Saito T, Takahashi MP, Takada H, Nakayama T, Ogata K, et al. Validation of the individualized neuromuscular quality of life in Japanese patients with myotonic dystrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26071.

  19. Vincent KA, Carr AJ, Walburn J, Scott DL, Rose MR. Construction and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for neuromuscular disease (INQoL). Neurology. 2007;68(13):1051–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000257819.47628.41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19(5):604–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mori I, Fujino H, Matsumura T, Takada H, Ogata K, Nakamori M, et al. The myotonic dystrophy health index: Japanese adaption and validity testing. Muscle Nerve. 2019;59(5):577–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Seesing FM, van Vught LE, Rose MR, Drost G, van Engelen BG, van der Wilt GJ. The individualized neuromuscular quality of life questionnaire: cultural translation and psychometric validation for the Dutch population. Muscle Nerve. 2015;51(4):496–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Landfeldt E, Nikolenko N, Jimenez-Moreno C, Cumming S, Monckton DG, Gorman G, et al. Disease burden of myotonic dystrophy type 1. J Neurol. 2019;266(4):998–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09228-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sansone VA, Ricci C, Montanari M, Apolone G, Rose M, Meola G. Measuring quality of life impairment in skeletal muscle channelopathies. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(11):1470–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2012.03751.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Laberge L, Mathieu J, Auclair J, Gagnon E, Noreau L, Gagnon C. Clinical, psychosocial, and central correlates of quality of life in myotonic dystrophy type 1 patients. Eur Neurol. 2013;70(5–6):308–15. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353991.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rakocevic-Stojanovic V, Peric S, Madzarevic R, Dobricic V, Ralic V, Ilic V, et al. Significant impact of behavioral and cognitive impairment on quality of life in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;126:76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.08.021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sansone VA, Panzeri M, Montanari M, Apolone G, Gandossini S, Rose MR, et al. Italian validation of INQoL, a quality of life questionnaire for adults with muscle diseases. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(9):1178–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02992.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heatwole C, Bode R, Johnson N, Quinn C, Martens W, McDermott MP, et al. Patient-reported impact of symptoms in myotonic dystrophy type 1 (PRISM-1). Neurology. 2012;79(4):348–57. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318260cbe6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cumming SA, Jimenez-Moreno C, Okkersen K, Wenninger S, Daidj F, Hogarth F, et al. Genetic determinants of disease severity in the myotonic dystrophy type 1 OPTIMISTIC cohort. Neurology. 2019;93(10):e995–e1009. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000008056.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Natterlund B, Gunnarsson LG, Ahlstrom G. Disability, coping and quality of life in individuals with muscular dystrophy: a prospective study over five years. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(17):776–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Peric S, Heatwole C, Durovic E, Kacar A, Nikolic A, Basta I, et al. Prospective measurement of quality of life in myotonic dystrophy type 1. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017;136(6):694–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(11):1507–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rose MR, Sadjadi R, Weinman J, Akhtar T, Pandya S, Kissel JT, et al. Role of disease severity, illness perceptions, and mood on quality of life in muscle disease. Muscle Nerve. 2012;46(3):351–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Walklet E, Muse K, Meyrick J, Moss T. Do psychosocial interventions improve quality of life and wellbeing in adults with neuromuscular disorders? A systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2016;3(3):347–62. https://doi.org/10.3233/JND-160155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Gagnon C, Gallais B, Laberge L. Myotonic dystrophy type 1: reasons to be OPTIMISTIC. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(8):652–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30240-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gagnon C, Tremblay M, CoTe I, Heatwole C. French translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Myotonic dystrophy health index. Muscle Nerve. 2018;57(4):686–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Okkersen K, Jimenez-Moreno C, Wenninger S, Daidj F, Glennon J, Cumming S, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy with optional graded exercise therapy in patients with severe fatigue with myotonic dystrophy type 1: a multicentre, single-blind, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(8):671–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30203-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Heatwole C, Bode R, Johnson N, Dekdebrun J, Dilek N, Heatwole M, et al. Myotonic dystrophy health index: initial evaluation of a disease-specific outcome measure. Muscle Nerve. 2014;49(6):906–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Heatwole C, Bode R, Johnson NE, Dekdebrun J, Dilek N, Eichinger K, et al. Myotonic dystrophy health index: correlations with clinical tests and patient function. Muscle Nerve. 2016;53(2):183–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sansone VA, Lizio A, Greco L, Gragnano G, Zanolini A, Gualandris M, et al. The Myotonic dystrophy health index: Italian validation of a disease-specific outcome measure. Neuromuscul Disord. 2017;27(11):1047–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmd.2017.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fujino H, Shingaki H, Suwazono S, Ueda Y, Wada C, Nakayama T, et al. Cognitive impairment and quality of life in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Muscle Nerve. 2018;57(5):742–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peric S, Rakocevic Stojanovic V, Mandic Stojmenovic G, Ilic V, Kovacevic M, Parojcic A, et al. Clusters of cognitive impairment among different phenotypes of myotonic dystrophy type 1 and type 2. Neurol Sci. 2017;38(3):415–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-016-2778-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dany A, Barbe C, Rapin A, Reveillere C, Hardouin JB, Morrone I, et al. Construction of a quality of life questionnaire for slowly progressive neuromuscular disease. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(11):2615–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1013-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dany A, Rapin A, Lavrard B, Saout V, Reveillere C, Bassez G, et al. The quality of life in genetic neuromuscular disease questionnaire: Rasch validation of the French version. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(6):1085–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported in part by research grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) 17ek0109259 and 21ek0109474), the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Japan (21FC1006), and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (21 K03047). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analyses, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child Development, United Graduate School of Child Development, Osaka University, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, 5650871, Japan

    Haruo Fujino

  2. Department of Special Needs Education, Oita University, 700 Dannoharu, Oita, Japan

    Haruo Fujino

  3. Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Japan

    Haruo Fujino & Osamu Imura

  4. Division of Child Neurology, National Hospital Organization Osaka Toneyama Medical Center, 5-1-1 Toneyama, Toyonaka, Japan

    Toshio Saito

  5. Department of Neurology, National Hospital Organization Osaka Toneyama Medical Center, 5-1-1 Toneyama, Toyonaka, Japan

    Toshio Saito & Tsuyoshi Matsumura

  6. Department of Clinical Laboratory and Biomedical Sciences, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Japan

    Masanori P. Takahashi

  7. Department of Neurology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Japan

    Masanori P. Takahashi

  8. Department of Neurology, National Hospital Organization Aomori National Hospital, 155-1 Megasawa-Hirano, Aomori, Japan

    Hiroto Takada

  9. Department of Neurology, Yokohama Rosai Hospital, 3211 Kozukue, Yokohama, Japan

    Takahiro Nakayama

  10. Faculty of Social Sciences, Nara University, 1500 Misasagi, Nara, Japan

    Osamu Imura

Authors
  1. Haruo Fujino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toshio Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masanori P. Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroto Takada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takahiro Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Osamu Imura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tsuyoshi Matsumura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HF was critically involved in the study design as well as the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and wrote the draft of manuscript. HF, MPT, OI, and TM were involved in the development of study concept. OI was critically involved in the design and interpretation of the data. TS, MPT, HT, TN, and TM were involved in the patient recruitment and clinical assessments. All authors contributed intellectually to the data interpretation and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haruo Fujino.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all patients who participated in this study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. This study was approved by the Osaka University Clinical Research Review Committee (no. 14480).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fujino, H., Saito, T., Takahashi, M.P. et al. Quality of life and subjective symptom impact in Japanese patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. BMC Neurol 22, 55 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02581-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02581-w

Keywords

BMC Neurology

ISSN: 1471-2377

Contact us