Interpreting Evaluating Respiratory SymptomsTM in COPD Diary Scores in Clinical Trials: Terminology, Methods, and Recommendations.

Accurately interpreting scores on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is essential to understanding and communicating treatment benefit. Over the years, terminology and methods for developing recommendations for PRO score interpretation in clinical trials have evolved, leading to some confusion in the field. The phrase "minimal clinically important difference (MCID)" has been simplified to "minimal important difference (MID)" and use of responder thresholds to interpret statistically significant treatment effects has increased. Anchor-based derivation methods continue to be the standard, with specific variations preferred by regulatory authorities for drug development programs. In the midst of these changes, the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ in COPD (E-RS:COPD) was developed and qualified for use as an endpoint in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) drug development programs. This paper summarizes the evolution of terminology and method preferences for the development of recommendations for interpreting scores from PRO measures used in clinical trials, and how these changes are reflected in the E-RS:COPD recommendations. The intent is to add clarity to discussions around PRO endpoints and facilitate use of the E-RS:COPD as a key efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of COPD.

Characterizing COPD Symptom Variability in the Stable State Utilizing the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD Instrument.

Rationale: It has been suggested that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience considerable daily respiratory symptom fluctuation. A standardized measure is needed to quantify and understand the implications of day-to-day symptom variability. Objectives: To compare standard deviation with other statistical measures of symptom variability and identify characteristics of individuals with higher symptom variability. Methods: Individuals in the SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures In COPD Study (SPIROMICS) Exacerbations sub-study completed an Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) daily questionnaire. We calculated within-subject standard deviation (WS-SD) for each patient at week 0 and correlated this with measurements obtained 4 weeks later using Pearson's r and Bland Altman plots. Median WS-SD value dichotomized participants into higher versus lower variability groups. Association between WS-SD and exacerbation risk during 4 follow-up weeks was explored. Measurements and Main Results: Diary completion rates were sufficient in 140 (68%) of 205 sub-study participants. Reproducibility (r) of the WS-SD metric from baseline to week 4 was 0.32. Higher variability participants had higher St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores (47.3 ± 20.3 versus 39.6 ± 21.5, p=.04) than lower variability participants. Exploratory analyses found no relationship between symptom variability and health care resource utilization-defined exacerbations. Conclusions: WS-SD of the E-RS can be used as a measure of symptom variability in studies of patients with COPD. Patients with higher variability have worse health-related quality of life. WS-SD should be further validated as a measure to understand the implications of symptom variability.

A Conceptual Framework for Use of Increased Endurance Time During Constant Work Rate Cycle Ergometry as a Patient-Focused Meaningful Outcome in COPD Clinical Trials.

The Chronic Lung Disease Biomarker and Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Consortium (CBQC) evaluates the potential of biomarkers and outcome measures as drug development tools. Exercise endurance is an objective indicator of treatment benefit, closely related to daily physical function. Therefore, it is an ideal candidate for an outcome for drug development trials. Unfortunately, no exercise endurance measure is qualified by regulatory authorities for use in trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and no approved COPD therapies have claims of improving exercise endurance. Consequently, it has been challenging for developers to consider this outcome when designing clinical trials for new therapies. Endurance time during constant work rate cycle ergometry (CWRCE), performed on an electronically braked stationary cycle ergometer, provides an exercise endurance measure under standardized conditions. Baseline individualized work rate for each participant is set using an incremental test. During CWRCE the patient is encouraged to continue exercising for as long as possible. Although not required, physiological and sensory responses (e.g., pulmonary ventilation, heart rate, dyspnea ratings) are frequently collected to support interpretation of endurance time changes. Exercise tolerance limit is reached when the individual is limited by symptoms, unable to maintain pedaling cadence or unable to continue safely. At exercise cessation, exercise duration is recorded. An CWRCE endurance time increase from the pre-treatment baseline is proposed as a key efficacy endpoint in clinical trials. In COPD, improved exercise endurance has a direct relationship to the experience of physical functioning in daily life, which is a patient-centered, meaningful benefit.

Use of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ in COPD as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials: A Rapid Systematic Review.

RATIONALE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) struggle with respiratory symptoms that impair their daily activities and quality of life. Understanding a treatment's ability to relieve symptoms requires precise assessment. The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RSTM:COPD) was developed to quantify respiratory symptoms in clinical trials. This study aimed to better understand how trials use this patient-reported outcome measure as an endpoint, as well as its responsiveness and performance relative to other outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the use of the E-RS:COPD in pharmacological trials since its qualification by regulatory authorities. METHODS: A rapid systematic literature review, using key biomedical databases to identify English language full-text publications of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that included the E-RS:COPD as an endpoint (2010-2020). Two investigators independently screened the publications and extracted data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 219 screened records, 28 full-text publications were included, and data from 17 reporting 20 unique double-blind RCTs were synthesized. The E-RS:COPD was positioned as a primary or secondary endpoint in six publications (35%), and served as an exploratory or additional endpoint in 11 (65%). Statistically significant E-RS:COPD treatment effects versus placebo/comparator were found in 13 of the 14 publications reporting symptom results. E-RS:COPD effects corresponded well with other outcome measures (e.g., St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and forced expiratory volume 1 second [FEV1]). Two publications reported the number of responders. CONCLUSIONS: E-RS:COPD is sensitive to treatment effects in clinical trials testing drug therapies. Presentation of trial results should include responder analyses to facilitate interpretation and application of results.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of E-RS:COPD in patients with spirometric asthma-COPD overlap.

BACKGROUND: The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS:COPD) is a patient-reported diary that assesses respiratory symptoms in stable COPD. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm trial (GSK ID: 200699; NCT02164539) assessed the structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the E-RS, and a separate wheeze item, for use in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD, but with spirometric characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol; a subset of patients referred to as spirometric asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]; N = 338). RESULTS: Factor analysis demonstrated that E-RS included Cough and Sputum, Chest Symptoms, and Breathlessness domains, with a Total score suitable for quantifying overall respiratory symptoms (comparative fit index: 0.9), consistent with the structure shown in COPD. The wheeze item did not fit the model. Total and domain scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: 0.7-0.9) and reproducible (intra-class correlations > 0.7). Moderate correlations between RS-Total and RS-Breathlessness scores were observed with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and Activity domain scores at baseline (r = 0.43 and r = 0.48, respectively). E-RS scores were sensitive to change when a patient global impression of change and SGRQ change scores were used to define responders, with changes of ≥ - 1.4 in RS-Total score interpreted as clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: E-RS:COPD scores were reliable, valid and responsive in this sample, suggesting the measure may be suitable for evaluating the severity of respiratory symptoms and the effects of treatment in patients with asthma and COPD that exhibit spirometric characteristics of both fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility. Further study of this instrument and wheeze in new samples of patients with ACO is warranted.

Using the Influenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary to evaluate symptoms of influenza viral infection in a healthy human challenge model.

BACKGROUND: In clinical studies involving a healthy volunteer human challenge model, a valid and reliable measure to assess the evolution of patient-reported symptom type and severity following viral exposure is necessary. This study examines the use of the InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary as a standardized measure of symptom severity in a healthy volunteer human challenge model. METHODS: Healthy adults admitted to the NIH Clinical Center (Day - 1) underwent a 9-day inpatient quarantine after intranasal challenge with a wild-type influenza A/H1N1pdm virus (Day 0). Participants completed the 32-item FLU-PRO diary twice daily for 14 days to assess presence, severity, and duration of symptoms across six body systems. Secondary analyses included descriptive statistics to examine FLU-PRO scores over the course of illness and analysis of variance to compare scores on Day 3 post-challenge by presence of viral shedding, and pre-challenge hemagglutinin and neuraminidase inhibition (HAI and NAI) titers. RESULTS: All but one subject (99%), who was lost to follow-up, completed twice daily FLU-PRO diaries on all study assessment days. FLU-PRO demonstrated that 61 of 65 subjects reported symptoms (Days: Median 5, Mean 6 ± 7), of whom 37 (61%) had viral shedding. Pre-challenge, 39 (64%) and 10 (16%) subjects had low (< 1:40) HAI and NAI titers, respectively. Nose, throat, body, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms reached peak intensity at Day 3, followed by chest/respiratory and eye symptoms at Day 4. Subjects with viral shedding had higher mean FLU-PRO scores compared to those without, except for Eye and GI domains (p <0.05). Mean FLU-PRO scores were significantly higher for subjects with low NAI titer (p <0.05) across all domains. No significant differences were observed between HAI titer groups. FLU-PRO scores of the low HAI-low NAI group (n = 10) were significantly higher (more severe) than the other two groups (p < 0.05) (high HAI-high NAI (n = 22), low HAI-high NAI (n = 29)). CONCLUSIONS: The FLU-PRO had high adherence and low respondent burden. It can be used to track symptom onset, intensity, duration, and recovery from influenza infection in clinical research. In this human challenge study, scores were responsive to change and distinguished known clinical subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01971255 First Registered October 2, 2013.

Can CAPTURE be used to identify undiagnosed patients with mild-to-moderate COPD likely to benefit from treatment?

Background: COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE™) uses five questions and peak expiratory flow (PEF) thresholds (males ≤350 L/min; females ≤250 L/min) to identify patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.70 and FEV1 <60% predicted or exacerbation risk requiring further evaluation for COPD. This study tested CAPTURE's ability to identify symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate COPD (FEV1 60%-80% predicted) who may also benefit from diagnosis and treatment. Methods: Data from the CAPTURE development study were used to test its sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) differentiating mild-to-moderate COPD (n=73) from no COPD (n=87). SN and SP for differentiating all COPD cases (mild to severe; n=259) from those without COPD (n=87) were also estimated. The modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale and COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) were used to evaluate symptoms and health status. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01880177, https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01880177?term=NCT01880177&rank=1. Results: Mean age (+SD): 61 (+10.5) years; 41% male. COPD: FEV1/FVC=0.60 (+0.1), FEV1% predicted=74% (+12.4). SN and SP for differentiating mild-to-moderate and non-COPD patients (n=160): Questionnaire: 83.6%, 67.8%; PEF (≤450 L/min; ≤350 L/min): 83.6%, 66.7%; CAPTURE (Questionnaire+PEF): 71.2%, 83.9%. COPD patients whose CAPTURE results suggested that diagnostic evaluation was warranted (n=52) were more likely to be symptomatic than patients whose results did not (n=21) (mMRC >2: 37% vs 5%, p<0.01; CAT>10: 86% vs 57%, p<0.01). CAPTURE differentiated COPD from no COPD (n=346): SN: 88.0%, SP: 83.9%. Conclusion: CAPTURE (450/350) may be useful for identifying symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate airflow obstruction in need of diagnostic evaluation for COPD.

Exacerbation recovery patterns in newly diagnosed or maintenance treatment-naïve patients with COPD: secondary analyses of TICARI 1 trial data.

Background: Little is known about the recovery patterns from acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in newly diagnosed or maintenance treatment-naïve patients with COPD. This study describes the course of AECOPD in these patients at the time of treatment for the symptoms of acute respiratory tract infection (RTI). Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a 12-week, randomized clinical trial (TICARI 1) testing the efficacy and safety of once-daily tiotropium 18 µg maintenance therapy versus placebo in newly diagnosed or maintenance treatment-naïve COPD patients with acute RTI symptoms for ≤7 days. Patients received standard care for AECOPD and RTI. Due to under-recruitment, the trial ended early and hence was underpowered to detect treatment differences. Data were pooled and exacerbation recovery patterns examined by using the EXAcerbation of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, rescue medication use, COPD Assessment Test™, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Short Form, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Respiratory Symptoms. Results: Of 140 patients, 73.6% had a prior COPD diagnosis without maintenance therapy; 80.0% had moderate-to-severe airflow obstruction. In addition to study drug, 40.0% were prescribed pharmacologic therapy (corticosteroids [34.3%], antibiotics [16.4%], and short-acting ß2-adrenergic agonists [5.0%]) within ±7 days of randomization. Over 12 weeks, 78.6% exhibited symptomatic recovery (EXACT score) in a median of 5.0 days. Across all patients, 49.3% recovered without relapse, 29.3% recovered and then relapsed, and 21.4% had persistent symptoms (recovery criteria unmet). Conclusion: A substantial portion of newly diagnosed or maintenance treatment-naïve patients with COPD experience relapse or persistent symptoms following a clinic visit for AECOPD with symptoms of RTI. Whether initiating maintenance therapy could improve outcomes and reduce exacerbation risk requires further study.

The Short-term Impact of Symptom-defined COPD Exacerbation Recovery on Health Status and Lung Function.

Background: This study examined the short-term effects of symptom-defined exacerbation recovery on health status and pulmonary function in moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Methods: Secondary analyses of pooled data from two 12-week Phase II international, randomized controlled trials using the EXAcerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT) to identify symptom-defined exacerbations were conducted. Recovery was categorized as recovered, unrecovered (persistent worsening), or censored. Multiple regression analyses were used to test the effect of recovery status on change in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to Week 12. Evaluating Respiratory Symptom scale (E-RS) scores were used to evaluate change in stable-state respiratory symptoms from baseline to Week 12. Results: Of 1346 eligible patients, 414 (31%) experienced ≥1 symptom-defined exacerbation; 260 patients recovered from their events, 80 experienced an unrecovered event (persistent worsening), 74 patients had only censored events (excluded). Groups were similar at baseline, with the recovered group reporting significantly worse symptoms (p<0.01). Recovery group and baseline SGRQ were significant predictors of change in health status over 12 weeks (p=0.04; p<0.01); no effects were observed for lung function. Significant between-group differences in change in respiratory symptom severity from baseline to Week 12 were observed (p<0.01), with the persistent worsening group experiencing clinically meaningful deterioration in breathlessness and chest symptoms. Conclusions: Results suggest some patients have difficulty recovering from symptom-defined exacerbations, leading to a deterioration in health status, dyspnea, and chest symptoms without short-term effects on lung function. Further study of symptom-defined exacerbation recovery and health outcomes is warranted.

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI).

BACKGROUND: The inFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) measure is a daily diary assessing signs/symptoms of influenza across six body systems: Nose, Throat, Eyes, Chest/Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, Body/Systemic, developed and tested in adults with influenza. OBJECTIVES: This study tested the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of FLU-PRO scores in adults with influenza-like illness (ILI). METHODS: Data from the prospective, observational study used to develop and test the FLU-PRO in influenza virus positive patients were analyzed. Adults (≥18 years) presenting with influenza symptoms in outpatient settings in the US, UK, Mexico, and South America were enrolled, tested for influenza virus, and asked to complete the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14-days. Analyses were performed on data from patients testing negative. Reliability of the final, 32-item FLU-PRO was estimated using Cronbach's alpha (α; Day 1) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-day reproducibility). Convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using patient global assessments of influenza severity (PGA). Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (Day 1-7). RESULTS: The analytical sample included 220 ILI patients (mean age = 39.3, 64.1% female, 88.6% white). Sixty-one (28%) were hospitalized at some point in their illness. Internal consistency reliability (α) of FLU-PRO Total score was 0.90 and ranged from 0.72-0.86 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 1-2) was 0.64 for Total, ranging from 0.46-0.78 for domain scores. Day 1 FLU-PRO scores correlated (≥0.30) with the PGA (except Gastrointestinal) and were significantly different across PGA severity groups (Total: F = 81.7, p<0.001; subscales: F = 6.9-62.2; p<0.01). Mean score improvements Day 1-7 were significantly greater in patients reporting return to usual health compared with those who did not (p<0.05, Total and subscales, except Gastrointestinal and Eyes). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive in adults with influenza-like illness.

Respiratory Symptoms Items from the COPD Assessment Test Identify Ever-Smokers with Preserved Lung Function at Higher Risk for Poor Respiratory Outcomes. An Analysis of the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study Cohort.

RATIONALE: Ever-smokers without airflow obstruction scores greater than or equal to 10 on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) still have frequent acute respiratory disease events (exacerbation-like), impaired exercise capacity, and imaging abnormalities. Identification of these subjects could provide new opportunities for targeted interventions. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that the four respiratory-related items of the CAT might be useful for identifying such individuals, with discriminative ability similar to CAT, which is an eight-item questionnaire used to assess chronic obstructive pulmonary disease impact, including nonrespiratory questions, with scores ranging from 0 to 40. METHODS: We evaluated ever-smoker participants in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcomes in COPD Study without airflow obstruction (FEV1/FVC ≥0.70; FVC above the lower limit of normal). Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, we compared responses to both CAT and the respiratory symptom-related CAT items (cough, phlegm, chest tightness, and breathlessness) and their associations with longitudinal exacerbations. We tested agreement between the two strategies (κ statistic), and we compared demographics, lung function, and symptoms among subjects identified as having high symptoms by each strategy. RESULTS: Among 880 ever-smokers with normal lung function (mean age, 61 yr; 52% women) and using a CAT cutpoint greater than or equal to 10, we classified 51.8% of individuals as having high symptoms, 15.3% of whom experienced at least one exacerbation during 1-year follow-up. After testing sensitivity and specificity of different scores for the first four questions to predict any 1-year follow-up exacerbation, we selected cutpoints of 0-6 as representing a low burden of symptoms versus scores of 7 or higher as representing a high burden of symptoms for all subsequent comparisons. The four respiratory-related items with cutpoint greater than or equal to 7 selected 45.8% participants, 15.6% of whom experienced at least one exacerbation during follow-up. The two strategies largely identified the same individuals (agreement, 88.5%; κ = 0.77; P < 0.001), and the proportions of high-symptoms subjects who had severe dyspnea were similar between CAT and the first four CAT questions (25.9% and 26.8%, respectively), as were the proportions reporting impaired quality of life (66.9% and 70.5%, respectively) and short walking distance (22.4% and 23.1%, respectively). There was no difference in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict 1-year follow-up exacerbations (CAT score ≥10, 0.66; vs. four respiratory items from CAT ≥7 score, 0.65; P = 0.69). Subjects identified by either method also had more depression/anxiety symptoms, poor sleep quality, and greater fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Four CAT items on respiratory symptoms identified high-risk symptomatic ever-smokers with preserved spirometry as well as the CAT did. These data suggest that simpler strategies can be developed to identify these high-risk individuals in primary care.

How Well Does CAPTURE Translate?: An Exploratory Analysis of a COPD Case-Finding Method for Spanish-Speaking Patients.

BACKGROUND: This study tested the properties of a Spanish translation of CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk) with selective use of peak expiratory flow (PEF). METHODS: This study comprised analyses of data from the Spanish-speaking cohort of the cross-sectional, case-control study used to develop CAPTURE. Translation procedures included forward and backward translation, reconciliation, and cognitive interviewing to assure linguistic and cultural equivalence, yielding CAPTURE-S. Spanish-speaking participants were recruited through one center and designated as case subjects (clinically significant COPD: FEV1 ≤ 60% predicted and/or at risk of COPD exacerbation) or control subjects (no or mild COPD). Subjects completed a questionnaire booklet that included 44 candidate items, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea question. PEF and spirometry were also performed. RESULTS: The study included 30 participants (17 case subjects and 13 control subjects). Their mean (± SD) age was 62.6 (11.49) years, and 33% were male. CAPTURE-S scores were significantly correlated with PEF (r = -0.78), the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = -0.74), FEV1 (r = -0.69), FEV1 % predicted (r = -0.69), the CAT score (r = 0.70), and the mMRC dyspnea question (r = 0.59) (P < .0001), with significantly higher scores in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 6.16; P < .0001). PEF significantly correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.89), FEV1 % predicted (r = 0.79), and the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = 0.75) (P < .0001), with significantly lower PEF in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 5.08; P < .0001). CAPTURE-S score + PEF differentiated case subjects and control subjects with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 92.3%. CONCLUSIONS: CAPTURE-S with selective use of PEF seems to be useful for identifying Spanish-speaking patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD who may benefit from initiation of COPD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01880177; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Development and validation of the Ulcerative Colitis patient-reported outcomes signs and symptoms (UC-pro/SS) diary.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of ulcerative colitis (UC) and the effects of treatment are assessed through patient-reported signs and symptoms (S&S), and endoscopic evidence of inflammation. The Ulcerative Colitis Patient-Reported Outcomes Signs and Symptoms (UC-PRO/SS) measure was developed to standardize the quantification of gastrointestinal S&S of UC in clinical trials through direct report from patient ratings. DESIGN: The UC-PRO/SS was developed by collecting data from concept elicitation (focus groups, and individual interviews), then refined through a process of cognitive interviews of 57 UC patients. Measurement properties, including item-level statistics, scaling structure, reliability, and validity, were evaluated in an observational, four-week study of adults with mild to severe UC (N = 200). RESULTS: Findings from qualitative focus groups and interviews identified nine symptom items covering bowel and abdominal symptoms. The final UC-PRO/SS daily diary includes two scales: Bowel S&S (six items) and Abdominal Symptoms (three items), each scored separately. Each scale showed evidence of adequate reliability (α = 80 and 0.66, respectively); reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81, 0.71) and validity, including moderate-to-high correlations with the Partial Mayo Score (0.79; 0.45) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) total score (- 0.70; - 0.61). Scores discriminated by level of disease severity, as defined by the Partial Mayo Score, Patient Global Rating, and Clinician Global Rating (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the UC-PRO/SS is a reliable and valid measure of gastrointestinal symptom severity in UC patients. Additional longitudinal data are needed to evaluate the ability of the UC-PRO/SS scores to detect responsiveness and inform the selection of responder definitions.

Development and validation of the Crohn's disease patient-reported outcomes signs and symptoms (CD-PRO/SS) diary.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of Crohn's disease (CD) and the effect of its treatment are monitored through patient-reported signs and symptoms (S&S), and endoscopic evidence of inflammation. The Crohn's Disease Patient-reported Outcomes Signs and Symptoms (CD-PRO/SS) measure was developed to standardize the quantification of gastrointestinal S&S of CD through direct report from patient ratings. METHODS: The CD-PRO/SS was developed based on data from concept elicitation (focus groups, interviews; n = 29), then refined through cognitive interviews of CD patients (n = 20). Measurement properties, including item-level statistics, scaling structure, reliability, and validity, were examined using secondary analyses of baseline and two-week clinical trial data of adults with moderate-to-severe CD (n = 238). RESULTS: Findings from qualitative interviews identified nine S&S items covering bowel and abdominal symptoms. The final CD-PRO/SS daily diary includes two scales: Bowel S&S (three items) and Abdominal Symptoms (three items), each scored separately. Each scale showed evidence of adequate reliability (α = 0.74 and 0.67, respectively); reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.80), and validity, with the last including moderate correlations with the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire bowel symptom score and select items (ranging from r = 0.43-0.54). Scores distinguished patients categorized by patient global ratings of disease severity (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the CD-PRO/SS is a reliable and valid measure of gastrointestinal symptom severity in CD patients. Additional longitudinal data are needed to evaluate the ability of the CD-PRO/SS scores to detect responsiveness and inform the selection of responder definitions.

The effect of aclidinium bromide on daily respiratory symptoms of COPD, measured using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS: COPD) diary: pooled analysis of two 6-month Phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the severity of respiratory symptoms is a key goal in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the effect of aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily (BID) on respiratory symptoms, assessed using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS(™): COPD) scale (formerly EXACT-RS). METHODS: Data were pooled from the aclidinium 400 µg BID and placebo arms of two 24-week, double-blind, randomized Phase III studies evaluating aclidinium monotherapy (ATTAIN) or combination therapy (AUGMENT COPD I) in patients with moderate to severe airflow obstruction. Patients were stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Groups A-D. Change from baseline in E-RS scores, proportion of responders (patients achieving pre-defined improvements in E-RS scores), and net benefit (patients who improved minus patients who worsened) were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1210 patients, 1167 had data available for GOLD classification. Mean (standard deviation) age was 63.2 (8.6) years, 60.7 % were male, and mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 54.4 % predicted. Compared with placebo, aclidinium 400 µg BID significantly improved RS-Total (2.38 units vs 0.79 units, p < 0.001) and domain scores (all p < 0.001) at Week 24, and doubled the likelihood of being an RS-Total score responder (p < 0.05), irrespective of GOLD group. The net benefit for RS-Total (Overall: 56.9 % vs 19.4 %; A + C: 65.7 % vs 6.3 %; B + D: 56.0 % vs 20.8 %, for aclidinium 400 µg BID and placebo respectively; all p < 0.05) and domain scores (all p < 0.05) was significantly greater with aclidinium compared with placebo, in both GOLD Groups A + C and B + D. CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium 400 µg BID significantly improved respiratory symptoms regardless of the patients' level of symptoms at baseline. Net treatment benefit was similar in patients with low or high levels of symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ATTAIN (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01001494 ) and AUGMENT COPD I (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01437397 ).

Insight into Best Variables for COPD Case Identification: A Random Forests Analysis.

RATIONALE: This study is part of a larger, multi-method project to develop a questionnaire for identifying undiagnosed cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care settings, with specific interest in the detection of patients with moderate to severe airway obstruction or risk of exacerbation. OBJECTIVES: To examine 3 existing datasets for insight into key features of COPD that could be useful in the identification of undiagnosed COPD. METHODS: Random forests analyses were applied to the following databases: COPD Foundation Peak Flow Study Cohort (N=5761), Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) Kentucky site (N=508), and COPDGene® (N=10,214). Four scenarios were examined to find the best, smallest sets of variables that distinguished cases and controls:(1) moderate to severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] <50% predicted) versus no COPD; (2) undiagnosed versus diagnosed COPD; (3) COPD with and without exacerbation history; and (4) clinically significant COPD (FEV1<60% predicted or history of acute exacerbation) versus all others. RESULTS: From 4 to 8 variables were able to differentiate cases from controls, with sensitivity ≥73 (range: 73-90) and specificity >68 (range: 68-93). Across scenarios, the best models included age, smoking status or history, symptoms (cough, wheeze, phlegm), general or breathing-related activity limitation, episodes of acute bronchitis, and/or missed work days and non-work activities due to breathing or health. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide insight into variables that should be considered during the development of candidate items for a new questionnaire to identify undiagnosed cases of clinically significant COPD.

Identifying Patients with Undiagnosed COPD in Primary Care Settings: Insight from Screening Tools and Epidemiologic Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet research suggests this disease is greatly underdiagnosed. This literature review sought to summarize the most common and significant variables associated with case-finding or missed cases of COPD to inform more effective and efficient detection of high-risk COPD patients in primary care. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles describing case-finding and epidemiologic research to detect or characterize new cases of COPD. International studies in primary and non-primary care settings, published in English from 2002-2014, were eligible for inclusion. Studies related to risk factors for development of COPD were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 33 studies identified and reviewed, 21 were case-finding or screening and 12 were epidemiological, including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective designs. A range of variables were identified within and across studies. Variables common to both screening and epidemiological studies included age, smoking status, and respiratory symptoms. Seven significant predictors from epidemiologic studies did not appear in screening tools. No studies targeted discovery of higher risk patients such as those with reduced lung function or risks for exacerbations. CONCLUSION: Variables used to identify new cases of COPD or differentiate COPD cases and non-cases are wide- ranging, (from sociodemographic to self-reported health or health history variables), providing insight into important factors for case identification. Further research is underway to develop and test the best, smallest variable set that can be used as a screening tool to identify people with undiagnosed, high-risk COPD in primary care.

Identifying cases of undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care: qualitative insight from patients in the target population.

BACKGROUND: Many cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are diagnosed only after significant loss of lung function or during exacerbations. AIMS: This study is part of a multi-method approach to develop a new screening instrument for identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care. METHODS: Subjects with varied histories of COPD diagnosis, risk factors and history of exacerbations were recruited through five US clinics (four pulmonary, one primary care). Phase I: Eight focus groups and six telephone interviews were conducted to elicit descriptions of risk factors for COPD, recent or historical acute respiratory events, and symptoms to inform the development of candidate items for the new questionnaire. Phase II: A new cohort of subjects participated in cognitive interviews to assess and modify candidate items. Two peak expiratory flow (PEF) devices (electronic, manual) were assessed for use in screening. RESULTS: Of 77 subjects, 50 participated in Phase I and 27 in Phase II. Six themes informed item development: exposure (smoking, second-hand smoke); health history (family history of lung problems, recurrent chest infections); recent history of respiratory events (clinic visits, hospitalisations); symptoms (respiratory, non-respiratory); impact (activity limitations); and attribution (age, obesity). PEF devices were rated easy to use; electronic values were significantly higher than manual (P<0.0001). Revisions were made to the draft items on the basis of cognitive interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-eight candidate items are ready for quantitative testing to select the best, smallest set of questions that, together with PEF, can efficiently identify patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD.

Measuring respiratory symptoms of COPD: performance of the EXACT- Respiratory Symptoms Tool (E-RS) in three clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic relief is an important treatment goal for patients with COPD. To date, no diary for evaluating respiratory symptoms in clinical trials has been developed and scientifically-validated according to FDA and EMA guidelines. The EXACT - Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS) scale is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure designed to address this need. The E-RS utilizes 11 respiratory symptom items from the existing and validated 14-item EXACT, which measures symptoms of exacerbation. The E-RS total score quantifies respiratory symptom severity, and 3 domains assess breathlessness, cough and sputum, and chest symptoms. METHODS: This study examined the performance of the E-RS in each of 3 controlled trials with common and unique validation variables: one 6-month (N = 235, US) and two 3-month (N = 749; N = 597; international). Subjects completed the E-RS as part of a daily eDiary. Tests of reliability, validity, and responsiveness were conducted in each dataset. RESULTS: In each study, RS-Total score was internally consistent (Cronbach α) (0.88, 0.92, 0.92) and reproducible (intra-class correlation) in stable patients (2 days apart: 0.91; 7 days apart: 0.71, 0.74). RS-Total scores correlated significantly with the following criterion variables (Spearman's rho; p < 0.01, all comparisons listed here): FEV1% predicted (-0.19, -0.14, -0.15); St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (0.65, 0.52, 0.51); Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale (BCSS) (0.89, 0.89); modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) (0.40); rescue medication use (0.43, 0.42); Functional Performance Inventory Short-Form (FPI-SF) (0.43); 6-minute walk distance (6-MWT) (-0.30, -0.14) and incremental shuttle walk (ISWT) (-0.18) tests. Correlations between these variables and RS-Breathlessness, RS-Cough and Sputum, RS-Chest Symptoms scores supported subscale validity. RS-Total, RS-Breathlessness, and RS-Chest Symptoms differentiated mMRC levels of breathlessness severity (p < 0.0001). RS-Total and domain scores differentiated subjects with no rescue medication use and 3 or more puffs (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity to changes in health status (SGRQ), symptoms (BCSS), and exercise capacity (6MWT, ISWT) were also shown and responder definitions using criterion- and distribution-based methods are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the E-RS is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of respiratory symptoms of COPD suitable for use in natural history studies and clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MPEX: NCT00739648 ; AZ1: NCT00949975 ; AZ 2: NCT01023516.