A review of the most common patient-reported outcomes in COPD - revisiting current knowledge and estimating future challenges (original) (raw)
2015, International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that quantify disease impact have become important measures of outcome in COPD research and treatment. The objective of this literature review was to comprehensively evaluate psychometric properties of available PRO instruments and the ability of each of them to characterize pharmaceutical treatment effects from published clinical trial evidence. Identified in this study were several PRO measures, both those that have been used extensively in COPD clinical trials (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire) and new instruments whose full value is still to be determined. This suggests a great need for more information about the patient experience of treatment benefit, but this also may pose challenges to researchers, clinicians, and other important stakeholders (eg, regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies) who develop new treatment entities and payers (including but not limited to health technology ass...
Related papers
Respiratory research, 2006
Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires are being increasingly used in COPD clinical studies. The challenge facing investigators is to determine what change is significant, ie what is the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study aimed to identify the MCID for the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in terms of patient referencing, criterion referencing, and by the standard error of measurement (SEM). Patients were > or = 40 years of age, diagnosed with COPD, had a smoking history of >10 pack-years, and were participating in a randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing intravenous and oral prednisolone in patients admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. The CCQ was completed on Days 1-7 and 42. A Global Rating of Change (GRC) assessment was taken to establish the MCID by patient referencing. For criterion referencing, health events during a period of 1 year after Day 42 were included in this analysis. 210 patients were recruited, 168 completed t...
Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group, 2004
A 1-day meeting, attended by invited respiratory and primary-care specialists all of whom had an international profile and a specific interest in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), considered specific research recommendations from the Global Initiative in Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) workshop report. Attendees discussed developing a tool to complement spirometry and help primary-care physicians assess treatment success in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Discussion focused on the requirement of such a tool, and the limitations of existing tools. Proposals followed for a simple, cost-effective checklist for primary-care. This paper is a consensus report of the discussions from the meeting. Decisions reached on the proposed questionnaire were unanimous.
Counting, analysing and reporting exacerbations of COPD in randomised controlled trials
Thorax, 2008
Clinical trials measure exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) inconsistently. A study was undertaken to determine if different methods for ascertaining and analysing COPD exacerbations lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. Information on the methods used to count, analyse and report COPD exacerbation rates was abstracted from clinical trials of long-acting bronchodilators or long-acting bronchodilator/inhaled steroid combination products published between 2000 and 2006. Data from the Canadian Optimal Therapy of COPD Trial was used to illustrate how different analytical approaches can affect the estimate of exacerbation rates and their confidence intervals. 22 trials (17,156 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. None of the trials adjudicated exacerbations or determined independence of events. 14/22 studies (64%) introduced selection bias by not analysing outcome data for subjects who prematurely stopped study medications. Only 31% o...
ERJ Open Research
BackgroundThe lack of standardized outcome assessments during hospitalisation and follow-up for acute COPD exacerbations has hampered scientific progress and clinical proficiency.ObjectivesTo evaluate patients’ acceptance of selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations and follow-up.MethodsAn online survey was held amongst COPD patients in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The ELF COPD Patient Advisory Group was involved in the conceptualisation, development and dissemination of the survey. The survey was complementary to a previously obtained expert consensus. We assessed patients’ views and acceptance of selected patient reported outcomes or experiences and corresponding measurement instruments (for dyspnoea, frequent productive cough, health status and hospitalisation experience), and of selected clinical investigations (blood-draw, pulmonary function test, six-minute walk test, chest computed tomography, echocard...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.