Consensus goals and standards for specialist cough clinics: the NEUROCOUGH international Delphi study.

Background: Current guidelines on the management of chronic cough do not provide recommendations for the operation of specialist cough clinics. The objective of the present study was to develop expert consensus on goals and standard procedures for specialist cough clinics. Methods: We undertook a modified Delphi process, whereby initial statements proposed by experts were categorised and presented back to panellists over two ranking rounds using an 11-point Likert scale to identify consensus. Results: An international panel of 57 experts from 19 countries participated, with consensus reached on 15 out of 16 statements, covering the aims, roles and standard procedures of specialist cough clinics. Panellists agreed that specialist cough clinics offer optimal care for patients with chronic cough. They also agreed that history taking should enquire as to cough triggers, cough severity rating scales should be routinely used, and a minimum of chest radiography, spirometry and measurements of type 2 inflammatory markers should be undertaken in newly referred patients. The importance of specialist cough clinics in promoting clinical research and cough specialty training was acknowledged. Variability in healthcare resources and clinical needs between geographical regions was noted. Conclusions: The Delphi exercise provides a platform and guidance for both established cough clinics and those in planning stages.

Asthma control conundrum in clinical practice - Data from a two-stage Delphi survey and literature review.

Definitions and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and practice often vary, as highlighted in the manuscript, "Is asthma control more than just an absence of symptoms? An expert consensus statement". Furthermore, the authors discussed differences between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in terms of understanding and managing asthma. Given these disparities, there is a need for consensus regarding what constitutes well-controlled asthma and, especially, how best it can be measured and recorded. In the current work, we describe our data and provide more detail on the methodology from a two-stage Delphi survey and a structured literature review, which were designed to reach a consensus definition of asthma control and alleviate misalignments between patients and HCPs. Survey data were collected using a two-stage Delphi technique; a method used to collate expert opinions over a series of sequential questionnaires to reach a consensus. The collated Delphi survey data were compared with results from a comprehensive, structured literature review of 216 publications, to assess if there was a correlation between existing guidance and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and standard clinical practice. In order to collate and interpret findings from the Delphi survey, responses from 82 panelists (73 HCPs and 9 authors) were qualitatively analyzed, quantitatively categorized, and presented as percentages or counts in Excel databases, which are detailed in the current work. Searches conducted using PubMed and Cochrane identified 664 manuscripts, and Embase was used to identify 89 congress abstracts. After applying a stringent screening method using predefined key words, the structured literature review consisted of 185 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 31 congress abstracts, and assessed existing guidance and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials. In this publication, we provide further insight into the predefined keywords, search strings, and strategy applied to identify manuscripts and congress abstracts for inclusion/exclusion, and detail methods for data extraction. Together, the data from the Delphi survey and structured literature review aimed to provide greater insights into challenges and approaches in achieving asthma control in clinical practice, with the potential for results to be used to guide a universally accepted definition and measure of asthma control that can be used and understood by patients, HCPs, and researchers. Qualitative and quantitative methodology and analysis from the Delphi survey and literature review search strategy can potentially be used to identify disparities and explore expert opinion and relevant literature in other therapeutic areas to guide a consensus where disparities exist.