Search

Background The concept of clinical control has been proposed as an instrument for evaluating patients with COPD. However, the possible association between clinical control, reduced symptom severity and HRQoL has yet to be confirmed. Methods This multicentre, prospective and observational study was carried out in 15 pulmonology clinics in Spain. The patients were followed up for six months, with a baseline visit (V0), followed by visits at three months (V1) and six months (V2). Clinical control was determined at V1, with the application of both clinical criteria and the COPD assessment test (CAT). All patients reported their symptoms by a validated symptom diary (E-RS) using a portable device, and their HRQoL was assessed using the EQ5D questionnaire. The relationship between clinical control and E-RS and HRQoL during follow-up was assessed with t-test. Results A total of 126 patients were screened. After application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 93 were finally included (mean age 66 ± 8 years, 84.9% male), with a mean FEV1 predicted of 49.8% ± 16.5%. Of these patients, 44 (47.3%) achieved clinical control at V1, according to CAT criteria, and 50 (53.8%), according to clinical criteria. The E-RS scores differed between controlled and uncontrolled patients at all time points, both according to CAT (mean differences of -4.6, -5.6 and -6.2 units at V0, V1 and V2, respectively, p

Introduction: Sleep disturbances and night time symptoms are associated with the level of control of ashtma symptoms and quality of life Aims and objectives: Main aim: validate the Sleep Jenkins Questionnaire (SJQ) into Spanish. Secondary aim: assess quality of sleep in asthmatic patients using the SJQ and the Medical Outcome Study (MOS) sleep scale and analyse the metric properties of the SJQ Method: A multicentric prospective study with an intervention group of asthmatic patients and a control group. A total of 90 cases and 90 controls were included. The questionnaires were administered during 3 successive visits at a 3 weeks and 3 months interval Results: The test re-test of SJQ between V1 and V2 in the 90 cases showed temporary stability. Patients who had exacerbation of asthma between V2 and V3 had higher scores in SJQ (worse quality of sleep) at V3 than V2, which shows the sensivity to change of the test. A good correlation between the two measurament scales was observed at V1. The SJQ score between cases and controls during V1 showed significant differences in quality of sleep in both grooups. No statistically significant differences were found in quality of sleep depending on the severity of asthma but statistically significant differences were observed according to the control of asthma. The overall quality of sleep of our patients was good Conclusions: The SJQ showed temporary stability in the test-retest, sensitivity to change and validity criteria

Background: COPD is characterized by persistent airflow limitation. FEV1 and FVC are not good predictors of exercise tolerance, dyspnea and quality of life. The GOLD 2011 document proposed a new classification system for COPD combining symptom, exacerbation risk and Lung function. For assessing symptoms, GOLD 2011 recommends the use of the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale or the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). The aim of our study is whether the assignment of a patient in a group could change depending on the symptom scale that is used. Material and method: observational prospective cohort study of subjects with COPD. Inclusion Criteria: FEV1/FVC post-BD: 10 packs/years. We categorize patients into: A: low risk, less symptoms; B: low risk, more symptoms; C: high risk, less symptoms; D: high risk, more symptoms. Subjects were classified twice according to CAT questionnaire and mMRC scale. Results: We included 42 subjects with a mean age of 67 years, 71.4% were men. The mean FEV1 was 65 and mean IMC was 28. The mean packs/years was 54.14 and twenty three subjects (54.8) were former smokers. Twenty seven subjects (64%) were low risk according to GOLD criteria (lung function, number of exacerbations and hospitalizations). By using mMRC scale, 24 (57.1%) subjects were assigned to group A, 3 (7.1%) to group B, 7 (16.7%) to group C, and 8 (79%) to group D. By using CAT score, 16 (38.1%) patients were assigned to group A, 11 (26.2%) to group B, 6 (14.3%) to group C, and 9(21%) to group D. Conclusions: Our study suggests the fact of using mMRC scale or CAT scores, may influence the treatment and classification of our patients according to GOLD guidelines.