Search

Vicky Kritikos,1,2 David Price,3– 5 Alberto Papi,6 Antonio Infantino,7 Björn Ställberg,8 Dermot Ryan,3,9 Federico Lavorini,10 Henry Chrystyn,11 John Haughney,12 Karin Lisspers,8 Kevin Gruffydd-Jones,13 Miguel Román Rodríguez,14 Svein Høegh Henrichsen,15 Thys van der Molen,16 Victoria Carter,3,4 Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich1,17,18 1Quality Use of Respiratory Medicines Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 3Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 4Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 5Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 6Respiratory Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 7Special Interest Respiratory Area, Italian Interdisciplinary Society for Primary Care, Bari, Italy; 8Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 9Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 10Department Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 11Inhalation Consultancy Ltd, Leeds, UK; 12NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde R&D, Glasgow, UK; 13Box Surgery, Box, UK; 14Primary Care Respiratory Research Unit Instituto De Investigación Sanitaria De Baleares (IdISBa), Palma, Spain; 15Department of Primary Health Care Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway; 16Department of Primary Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 17Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 18Central Sydney Local Area Health District, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaCorrespondence: Vicky KritikosWoolcock Institute of Medical Research, Glebe, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaTel +61 4 0299 5125Fax +61 2 9114 0014Email vicky.kritikos@sydney.edu.auPurpose: There is a dearth of research regarding the prevalence and nature of patient-reported rhinitis and its relationship with risk of asthma exacerbations. The aim of this study was to (i) determine the prevalence, severity and treatment of self-reported rhinitis symptoms among adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma treated at Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 3 and above and (ii) compare the demographics, clinical characteristics, medication use, side-effects and healthcare practitioner review between patients who report rhinitis symptoms and those who do not and (iii) determine whether patient-reported rhinitis is associated with risk of asthma exacerbations in the total patient sample.Patients and Methods: This analysis used data from the iHARP (Initiative Helping Asthma in Real-life Patients) asthma review service – a cross-sectional observational study (2011 and 2014) in seven countries that captured data on patient demographics, rhinitis symptoms, asthma symptoms, indicators of exacerbations, medication use, oropharyngeal effects and side-effects, using practitioner- and patient-reported questionnaires. Comparisons between patients with and without rhinitis were tested. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with risk of exacerbations for entry into multivariable logistic regression.Results: This report contains data from 4274 patients: 67.4% (2881/4274) reported rhinitis symptoms and of which 65.7% (1894/2881) had not received a doctor diagnosis; 36.5% (1052/2881) had moderate-severe rhinitis, 12.4% (358/2881) had used intranasal corticosteroids and 19.8% (569/2881) oral antihistamines. Patients with coexisting moderate-severe rhinitis were more likely to have GINA-defined uncontrolled asthma than those with mild rhinitis or no rhinitis. Moderate-severe rhinitis was associated with 40% increased risk of asthma exacerbations (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.02– 1.90).Conclusion: This study identified a major gap in the diagnosis and management of rhinitis in a cohort of people with asthma treated at GINA Step 3 and above who are managed in general practice. It highlights the need for practitioners to identify, evaluate and optimally treat rhinitis in adults with asthma, which is a significant factor associated with exacerbation risk.Keywords: asthma symptom control, comorbidities, oral steroids, preventer, reliever, side-effects

Afroditi K Boutou,1,2,* Yogini Raste,1,* Heleen Demeyer,3 Thierry Troosters,3 Michael I Polkey,1 Ioannis Vogiatzis,4,5 Zafeiris Louvaris,4 Roberto A Rabinovich,6 Thys van der Molen,7 Judith Garcia-Aymerich,8–10 Nicholas S Hopkinson1 On behalf of the PROactive consortium1National Institute for Health Research Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial College, London, UK; 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, “G. Papanikolaou” Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; 3Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences and Respiratory Division, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 4First Department of Respiratory Medicine, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 5Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK; 6ELEGI Colt Laboratory, Centre for Inflammation Research, The Queen’s Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 7Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 8ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain; 9Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain; 10Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, SpainCorrespondence: Afroditi K BoutouDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, “G. Papanikolaou” Hospital, Exohi, Thessaloniki 57010, GreeceTel +30 231 330 7277Email afboutou@yahoo.com*These authors contributed equally to this workPurpose: Longitudinal data on the effect of time and environmental conditions on physical activity (PA) among COPD patients are currently scarce, but this is an important factor in the design of trials to test interventions that might impact on it. Thus, we aimed to assess the effect of time and climate conditions (temperature, day length and rainfall) on progression of PA in a cohort of COPD patients.Patients and methods: This is a prospective, multicenter, cohort study undertaken as part of the EU/IMI PROactive project, in which we assessed 236 COPD patients simultaneously wearing two activity monitors (Dynaport MiniMod and Actigraph GT3X). A multivariable generalized linear model analysis was conducted to describe the effect of the explanatory variables on PA measures, over three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months).Results: At 12 months (n=157; FEV1% predicted=57.7±21.9) there was a significant reduction in all PA measures (Actigraph step count (4284±3533 vs 3533±293)), Actigraph moderate- to vigorous-intensity PA ratio (8.8 (18.8) vs 6.1 (15.7)), Actigraph vector magnitude units (374,902.4 (265,269) vs 336,240 (214,432)), MiniMod walking time (59.1 (34.9) vs 56.9 (38.7) mins) and MiniMod PA intensity (0.183 (0) vs 0.181 (0)). Time had a significant, negative effect on most PA measures in multivariable analysis, after correcting for climate factors, study center, age, FEV1% predicted, 6MWD and other disease severity measures. Rainfall was the only climate factor with a negative effect on most PA parameters.Conclusion: COPD patients demonstrate a significant decrease in PA over 1 year follow-up, which is further affected by hours of rainfall, but not by other climate considerations.Keywords: physical activity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, elapsed time, climate

Bertine MJ Flokstra - de Blok,1,2 Thys van der Molen,1,2 Wianda A Christoffers,3 Janwillem WH Kocks,1,2 Richard L Oei,4 Joanne NG Oude Elberink,2,4 Emmy M Roerdink,5 Marie Louise Schuttelaar,3 Jantina L van der Velde,1,2 Thecla M Brakel,1,6 Anthony EJ Dubois2,5 1Department of General Practice, 2GRIAC Research Institute, 3Department of Dermatology, 4Department of Allergology, 5Department of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Allergy, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 6Teaching Unit, Department of Social Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Background: Management of allergic patients in the population is becoming more difficult because of increases in both complexity and prevalence. Although general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play an important role in the care of allergic patients, they often feel ill-equipped for this task. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an allergy management support system (AMSS) for primary care. Methods: Through literature review, interviewing and testing in secondary and primary care patients, an allergy history questionnaire was constructed by allergists, dermatologists, GPs and researchers based on primary care and specialists’ allergy guidelines and their clinical knowledge. Patterns of AMSS questionnaire responses and specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE)-test outcomes were used to identify diagnostic categories and develop corresponding management recommendations. Validity of the AMSS was investigated by comparing specialist (gold standard) and AMSS diagnostic categories. Results: The two-page patient-completed AMSS questionnaire consists of 12 (mainly) multiple choice questions on symptoms, triggers, severity and medication. Based on the AMSS questionnaires and sIgE-test outcome of 118 patients, approximately 150 diagnostic categories of allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, anaphylaxis, food allergy, hymenoptera allergy and other allergies were identified, and the corresponding management recommendations were formulated. The agreement between the allergy specialists’ assessments and the AMSS was 69.2% (CI 67.2–71.2). Conclusion: Using a systematic approach, it was possible to develop an AMSS that allows for the formulation of diagnostic and management recommendations for GPs managing allergic patients. The AMSS thus holds promise for the improvement of the quality of primary care for this increasing group of patients. Keywords: allergy, development, diagnosis, management support system, primary care

Erik Bathoorn,1 Feikje Groenhof,2 Ron Hendrix,1,3 Thys van der Molen,2,4 Bhanu Sinha,1 Huib AM Kerstjens,5 Alex W Friedrich,1 Janwillem WH Kocks2,4 1Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2Department of Primary Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Department of Medical Microbiology, Certe – Laboratory for Infectious Diseases, Groningen, the Netherlands; 5GRIAC Research Institute, Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are generally treated with optimization of bronchodilation therapy and a course of oral corticosteroids, mostly without antibiotics. The Dutch guidelines recommend prudent use of antibiotics, with amoxicillin or doxycycline as first choice. Here we evaluate adherence to these guidelines with regard to antibiotic prescription in AECOPD in primary care and the use of sputum cultures. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a longitudinal cohort of patients in three primary care practices in the north-eastern region of the Netherlands from 2009 to 2013 (n=36,172 subjects) participating in the Registration Network Groningen. Antibiotics prescribed for AECOPD -10/+28 days from the start date of corticosteroid courses were evaluated. In addition, we assessed regional data on the susceptibility of respiratory pathogens from COPD patients. Results: We identified 1,297 patients with COPD. Of these, 616 experienced one or more exacerbations, resulting in a total of 1,558 exacerbations, for which 1,594 antibiotic courses were prescribed. The recommended antibiotics doxycycline and amoxicillin accounted for 56% of the prescribed antibiotics overall and for 35% in subsequent antibiotic courses. The alternative choices were not based on culture results because only in 67 AECOPD events (2.9%) sputum samples were taken. Regional data including 3,638 sputum samples showed that pathogens relevant in AECOPD were detected in 19% of cultures. Conclusion: Our study shows that guidelines regarding the prescription of antibiotics are poorly followed, particularly in recurrent exacerbations. Sputum cultures were performed in a small minority of cases. Performing sputum diagnostics in patients with early treatment failure or a repeated exacerbation when antibiotic treatment is started may further rationalize antibiotic treatment. Keywords: COPD, exacerbation, antimicrobial stewardship, bacteria, sputum cultures

Ioanna G Tsiligianni,1,2 Harma J Alma,1,2 Corina de Jong,1,2 Danijel Jelusic,3 Michael Wittmann,3 Michael Schuler,4 Konrad Schultz,3 Boudewijn J Kollen,1 Thys van der Molen,1,2 Janwillem WH Kocks1,2 1Department of General Practice, 2GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Klinik Bad Reichenhall, Center for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, Bad Reichenhall, 4Department of Medical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Background: In the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) strategy document, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale are recommended for the assessment of symptoms using the cutoff points of CCQ ≥1, CAT ≥10, and mMRC scale ≥2 to indicate symptomatic patients. The current study investigates the criterion validity of the CCQ, CAT and mMRC scale based on a reference cutoff point of St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) ≥25, as suggested by GOLD, following sensitivity and specificity analysis. In addition, areas under the curve (AUCs) of the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale were compared using two SGRQ cutoff points (≥25 and ≥20).Materials and methods: Two data sets were used: study A, 238 patients from a pulmonary rehabilitation program; and study B, 101 patients from primary care. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the correspondence between the recommended cutoff points of the questionnaires.Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥25 were: study A, 0.99, 0.43, and 0.96 for CCQ ≥1, 0.92, 0.48, and 0.89 for CAT ≥10, and 0.68, 0.91, and 0.91 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.87, 0.77, and 0.9 for CCQ ≥1, 0.76, 0.73, and 0.82 for CAT ≥10, and 0.21, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥20 were: study A, 0.99, 0.73, and 0.99 for CCQ ≥1, 0.91, 0.73, and 0.94 for CAT ≥10, and 0.66, 0.95, and 0.94 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.8, 0.89, and 0.89 for CCQ ≥1, 0.69, 0.78, and 0.8 for CAT ≥10, and 0.18, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2.Conclusion: Based on data from these two different samples, this study showed that the suggested cutoff point for the SGRQ (≥25) did not seem to correspond well with the established cutoff points of the CCQ or CAT scales, resulting in low specificity levels. The correspondence with the mMRC scale seemed satisfactory, though not optimal. The SGRQ threshold of ≥20 corresponded slightly better than SGRQ ≥25, recently suggested by GOLD 2015, with the established cutoff points for the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale. Keywords: pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive, health status

Hana Müllerová,1 Sarah H Landis,1 Zaurbek Aisanov,2 Kourtney J Davis,3 Masakazu Ichinose,4 David M Mannino,5 Joe Maskell,1 Ana M Menezes,6 Thys van der Molen,7 Yeon-Mok Oh,8 Maggie Tabberer,9 MeiLan K Han10 1GSK, Worldwide Epidemiology, Uxbridge, UK; 2Pulmonology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia; 3GSK, Worldwide Epidemiology, Upper Providence, PA, USA; 4Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; 5University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA; 6Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil; 7University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 8University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea; 9GSK, Value Evidence Outcomes, Uxbridge, UK; 10Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Background and aims: We used data from the Continuing to Confront COPD International Patient Survey to test the hypothesis that patients with COPD who report less engagement with their disease management are also more likely to report greater impact of the disease. Methods: This was a population-based, cross-sectional survey of 4,343 subjects aged ≥40 years from 12 countries, fulfilling a case definition of COPD based on self-reported physician diagnosis or symptomatology. The impact of COPD was measured with COPD Assessment Test, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, and hospital admissions and emergency department visits for COPD in the prior year. The 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) instrument and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) were used to measure patient disease engagement and medication adherence, respectively. Results: Twenty-eight percent of subjects reported being either disengaged or struggling with their disease (low engagement: PAM-13 levels 1 and 2), and 35% reported poor adherence (MMAS-8

Ana M Menezes,1 Sarah H Landis,2 MeiLan K Han,3 Hana Muellerova,2 Zaurbek Aisanov,4 Thys van der Molen,5 Yeon-Mok Oh,6 Masakazu Ichinose,7 David M Mannino,8 Kourtney J Davis9 1Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil; 2Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK; 3Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 4Pulmonology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia; 5University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 6University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea; 7Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; 8University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA; 9Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Wavre, Belgium Purpose: Using data from the Continuing to Confront COPD International Physician and Patient Surveys, this paper describes physicians’ attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prognosis, and compares physician and patient perceptions with respect to COPD. Methods: In 12 countries worldwide, 4,343 patients with COPD were identified through systematic screening of population samples, and 1,307 physicians who regularly saw patients with COPD were sampled from in-country professional databases. Both patients and physicians completed surveys about their COPD knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions; physicians answered further questions about diagnostic methods and treatment choices for COPD. Results: Most physicians (79%) responded that the long-term health outlook for patients with COPD has improved over the past decade, largely attributed to the introduction of better medications. However, patient access to medication remains an issue in many countries, and some physicians (39%) and patients (46%) agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “there are no truly effective treatments for COPD”. There was strong concordance between physicians and patients regarding COPD management practices, including the use of spirometry (86% of physicians and 76% of patients reporting they used/had undergone a spirometry test) and smoking cessation counseling (76% of physicians reported they counseled their smoking patients at every clinic visit, and 71% of smoking patients stated that they had received counseling in the past year). However, the groups differed in their perception about the role of smoking in COPD, with 78% of physicians versus 38% of patients strongly agreeing with the statement “smoking is the cause of most cases of COPD”. Conclusion: The Continuing to Confront COPD International Surveys demonstrate that while physicians and patients largely agreed about COPD management practices and the need for more effective treatments for COPD, a gap exists about the causal role of smoking in COPD. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, physician survey, patient survey, beliefs, perceptions

Kourtney J Davis,1 Sarah H Landis,2 Yeon-Mok Oh,3 David M Mannino,4 MeiLan K Han,5 Thys van der Molen,6 Zaurbek Aisanov,7 Ana M Menezes,8 Masakazu Ichinose,9 Hana Muellerova11Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Wavre, Belgium; 2Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK; 3University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea; 4University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA; 5Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 6University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 7Pulmonology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia; 8Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil; 9Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, JapanAim: Utilizing data from the Continuing to Confront COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) International Physician Survey, this study aimed to describe physicians’ knowledge and application of the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD diagnosis and treatment recommendations and compare performance between primary care physicians (PCPs) and respiratory specialists.Materials and methods: Physicians from 12 countries were sampled from in-country professional databases; 1,307 physicians (PCP to respiratory specialist ratio three to one) who regularly consult with COPD, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis patients were interviewed online, by telephone or face to face. Physicians were questioned about COPD risk factors, prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment, including knowledge and application of the GOLD global strategy using patient scenarios.Results: Physicians reported using spirometry routinely (PCPs 82%, respiratory specialists 100%; P

Sarah H Landis,1 Hana Muellerova,1 David M Mannino,2 Ana M Menezes,3 MeiLan K Han,4 Thys van der Molen,5 Masakazu Ichinose,6 Zaurbek Aisanov,7 Yeon-Mok Oh,8 Kourtney J Davis,9 1Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK; 2University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA; 3Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil; 4Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 5University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands; 6Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; 7Pulmonology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia; 8University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea; 9Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Wavre, Belgium Purpose: The Continuing to Confront COPD International Patient Survey aimed to estimate the prevalence and burden of COPD globally and to update findings from the Confronting COPD International Survey conducted in 1999–2000. Materials and methods: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients in 12 countries worldwide were identified through systematic screening of population samples. Telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted between November 2012 and May 2013 using a structured survey that incorporated validated patient-reported outcome instruments. Eligible patients were adults aged 40 years and older who were taking regular respiratory medications or suffered with chronic respiratory symptoms and reported either 1) a physician diagnosis of COPD/emphysema, 2) a physician diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, or 3) a symptom-based definition of chronic bronchitis. The burden of COPD was measured with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale. Results: Of 106,876 households with at least one person aged ≥40 years, 4,343 respondents fulfilled the case definition of COPD and completed the full survey. COPD prevalence ranged from 7% to 12%, with most countries falling within the range of 7%–9%. In all countries, prevalence increased with age, and in all countries except the US was greater among men (range 6%–14%) than among women (range 5%–11%). A significant disease burden was observed when considering COPD symptoms or health status, and showed wide variations across countries. Prevalence of moderate-to-severe dyspnea (mMRC scale ≥2) ranged from 27% to 61%, and mean CAT score ranged from 16.0 to 24.8, indicating medium-to-high impairment. Conclusion: This survey, representing 12 countries, showed similar rates of estimated COPD prevalence across countries that were higher than those reported a decade ago in the original Confronting COPD International Survey. A significant burden of COPD was demonstrated by symptoms and health care-resource use, similar to that reported in the original survey. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patient perspective, prevalence, patient-reported outcomes

Thys van der Molen,1,2 Marc Miravitlles,3 Janwillem WH Kocks1,21Department of General Practice, 2GRIAC (Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 3Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Biomedical Research Networking Centre in Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Barcelona, SpainAbstract: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present with a variety of symptoms that significantly impair health-related quality of life. Despite this, COPD treatment and its management are mainly based on lung function assessments. There is increasing evidence that conventional lung function measures alone do not correlate well with COPD symptoms and their associated impact on patients' everyday lives. Instead, symptoms should be assessed routinely, preferably by using patient-centered questionnaires that provide a more accurate guide to the actual burden of COPD. Numerous questionnaires have been developed in an attempt to find a simple and reliable tool to use in everyday clinical practice. In this paper, we review three such patient-reported questionnaires recommended by the latest Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines, ie, the modified Medical Research Council questionnaire, the clinical COPD questionnaire, and the COPD Assessment Test, as well as other symptom-specific questionnaires that are currently being developed.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, symptoms, questionnaires

Jan Willem H Kocks,1,2 Jan Willem K van den Berg,3 Huib AM Kerstjens,2,4 Steven M Uil,3 Judith M Vonk,2,5 Ynze P de Jong,3 Ioanna G Tsiligianni,1,2 Thys van der Molen1,2 1Department of General Practice, 2Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, 3Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, 4Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, 5Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Background: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major burden to patients and to society. Little is known about the possible role of day-to-day patient-reported outcomes during an exacerbation. This study aims to describe the day-to-day course of patient-reported health status during exacerbations of COPD and to assess its value in predicting clinical outcomes. Methods: Data from two randomized controlled COPD exacerbation trials (n = 210 and n = 45 patients) were used to describe both the feasibility of daily collection of and the day-to-day course of patient-reported outcomes during outpatient treatment or admission to hospital. In addition to clinical parameters, the BORG dyspnea score, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were used in Cox regression models to predict treatment failure, time to next exacerbation, and mortality in the hospital study. Results: All patient-reported outcomes showed a distinct pattern of improvement. In the multivariate models, absence of improvement in CCQ symptom score and impaired lung function were independent predictors of treatment failure. Health status and gender predicted time to next exacerbation. Five-year mortality was predicted by age, forced expiratory flow in one second % predicted, smoking status, and CCQ score. In outpatient management of exacerbations, health status was found to be less impaired than in hospitalized patients, while the rate and pattern of recovery was remarkably similar. Conclusion: Daily health status measurements were found to predict treatment failure, which could help decision-making for patients hospitalized due to an exacerbation of COPD. Keywords: health status, Clinical COPD Questionnaire, hospital, admission, prediction

Paul Jones,1 Marc Miravitlles,2 Thys van der Molen,3 Karoly Kulich41Division of Clinical Science, University of London, London, UK; 2Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Hospital Clínic, Ciber de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Barcelona, Spain; 3Department of Primary Care, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 4Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, SwitzerlandAbstract: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present with a variety of symptoms and pathological consequences. Although primarily viewed as a respiratory disease, COPD has both pulmonary and extrapulmonary effects, which have an impact on many aspects of physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Traditional assessment of COPD relies heavily on measuring lung function, specifically forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). However, the evidence suggests that FEV1 is a relatively poor correlate of symptoms such as breathlessness and the impact of COPD on daily life. Furthermore, many consequences of the disease, including anxiety and depression and the ability to perform daily activities, can only be described and reported reliably by the patient. Thus, in order to provide a comprehensive view of the effects of interventions in clinical trials, it is essential that spirometry is accompanied by assessments using patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We provide an overview of patient-reported outcome concepts in COPD, such as breathlessness, physical functioning, and health status, and evaluate the tools used for measuring these concepts. Particular attention is given to the newly developed instruments emerging in response to recent regulatory guidelines for the development and use of PROs in clinical trials. We conclude that although data from the development and validation of these new PRO instruments are emerging, to build the body of evidence that supports the use of a new instrument takes many years. Furthermore, new instruments do not necessarily have better discriminative or evaluative properties than older instruments. The development of new PRO tools, however, is crucial, not only to ensure that key COPD concepts are being reliably measured but also that the relevant treatment effects are being captured in clinical trials. In turn, this will help us to understand better the patient's experience of the disease.Keywords: patient-reported outcomes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, health-related quality of life, questionnaire development, dyspnea, exacerbations

Paul W Jones1, David Price2, Thys van der Molen31Cardiac and Vascular Medicine, St George’s, University of London, UK; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, UK; 3Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, The NetherlandsAbstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of disability in all its stages, and death in patients with moderate or severe obstruction. At present, COPD is suboptimally managed; current health is often not measured properly and hardly taken into account in management plans, and the future risk for patients with regard to health status and quality of life is not being evaluated. This review addresses the effect of COPD on the lives of patients and examines ways in which existing assessment tools meet physicians’ needs for a standardized, simple method to measure consistently the full impact of COPD on patients in routine clinical practice. Current assessment of COPD severity tends to focus on airflow limitation, but this does not capture the full impact of the disease and is not well correlated with patient perception of symptoms and health-related quality of life. Qualitative studies have demonstrated that patients usually consider COPD impact in terms of frequency and severity of symptoms, and physical and emotional wellbeing. However, patients often have difficulty expressing their disease burden and physicians generally have insufficient time to collect this information. Therefore, it is important that methods are implemented to help generate a more complete understanding of the impact of COPD. This can be achieved most efficiently using a quick, reliable, and standardized measure of disease impact, such as a short questionnaire that can be applied in daily clinical practice. Questionnaires are precision instruments that contribute sensitive and specific information, and can potentially help physicians provide optimal care for patients with COPD. Two short, easy-to-use, specific measures, ie, the COPD Assessment Test and the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, enable physicians to assess patients’ health status accurately and improve disease management. Such questionnaires provide important measurements that can assist primary care physicians to capture the impact of COPD on patients’ daily lives and wellbeing, and improve long-term COPD management.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD assessment test, disease management, health status, quality of life, questionnaire

Müllerová H, Landis SH, Aisanov Z, et al. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:881–890.On page 882, right column, second paragraph, the sentence “The primary hypotheses were addressed using the PAM-13,2 and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS)-8.18 should have read “The primary hypotheses were addressed using the PAM-13,2 and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS)-8.18,40,41On page 882, right column, last paragraph, the sentence “Adherence is classified as low (score 1–5), medium (score 6–7), or high (score 8) according to the overall score.” should read “Adherence is classified as low (score ,6), medium (score 6 to ,8), or high (score 8) according to the overall score.”On page 886, Table 3, the copyright statement “Use of the ©MMAS is protected by US copyright laws. Permission for use is required. A license agreement is available from: Donald E Morisky, ScD, ScM, MSPH, Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, UCLA School of Public Health, 650 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772.18,40,41” was not included in the Note section.Read the original article