Performance of the Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire (CASA-Q) in COPD: Evidence from Clinical and Online Patient Interaction Studies.

Introduction: Patient perception of the burden of chronic bronchitis symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire (CASA-Q) was developed and tested for this purpose. This study reviewed the performance of the CASA-Q in published online studies and tested a novel approach to complement traditional methods of qualitative content validation. Methods: A targeted literature search was performed to identify published clinical studies of COPD using the CASA-Q as an endpoint. The performance of the questionnaire was examined in relation to other study endpoints, including clinical and functional measurements and other PROMs. Assessment of the content validity of the CASA-Q was carried out by comparing the content and structure of the questionnaire with published qualitative patient data from previously conducted online social media listening (SML) and online bulletin board (OBB) studies. Results: In the interventional clinical trials, CASA-Q change scores were consistent with study objectives and other endpoints, including FEV1 and other PROMs. Two observational studies showed cross-sectional correlations with other PROMs like the St.-George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. Qualitative data from the SML and OBB patient studies were consistent with the content and structure of the CASA-Q, supporting the content validity of the measure. Conclusion: Results suggest that the CASA-Q is appropriately responsive to changes in cough and sputum symptoms and clinical impact in trials of COPD. The mapping of qualitative findings from online SML and OBB studies to CASA-Q domains and items confirm the content validity of the instrument. These results suggest the CASA-Q can be a valuable tool for evaluating treatment effect in COPD trials.

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.

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.