Health status measurement in COPD: the minimal clinically important difference of the clinical COPD questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 210 patients were recruited, 168 completed the CCQ questionnaire on Day 42. The MCID of the CCQ total score, as indicated by patient referencing in terms of the GRC, was 0.44. The MCID of the CCQ in terms of criterion referencing for the major outcomes was 0.39, and calculation of the SEM resulted in a value of 0.21. CONCLUSION: This investigation, which is the first to determine the MCID of a PRO questionnaire via more than one approach, indicates that the MCID of the CCQ total score is 0.4.

Benefit from the inclusion of self-treatment guidelines to a self-management programme for adults with asthma.

This study assessed the long-term efficacy of adding self-treatment guidelines to a self-management programme for adults with asthma. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 245 patients with stable, moderate to severe asthma were included. They were randomized into a self-treatment group (group S) and a control group (group C). Both groups received self-management education. Additionally, group S received self-treatment guidelines based on peak expiratory flow (PEF) and symptoms. Outcome parameters included: asthma symptoms, quality of life, pulmonary function, and exacerbation rate. The 2-yr study was completed by 174 patients. Both groups showed an improvement in the quality of life of 7%. PEF variability decreased by 32% and 29%, and the number of outpatient visits by 25% and 18% in groups S and C, respectively. No significant differences in these parameters were found between the two groups. After 1 yr, patients in both groups perceived better control of asthma and had more self-confidence regarding their asthma. The latter improvements were significantly greater in group S as compared to group C. There were no other differences in outcome parameters between the groups. Individual self-treatment guidelines for exacerbations on top of a general self-management programme does not seem to be of additional benefit in terms of improvements in the clinical outcome of asthma. However, patients in the self-treatment group had better scores in subjective outcome measures such as perceived control of asthma and self-confidence than patients in the control group.