Validation of Constant Work Rate Cycling Endurance Time for Use in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Clinical Trials.

Rationale: A COPD Foundation working group sought to identify measures of exercise endurance, a meaningful aspect of physical functioning in everyday life among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that is not fully accepted in regulatory decision making, hampering drug development. Objectives: To demonstrate, as we previously asserted (Casaburi COPD 2022;9:252), that constant work rate cycling endurance time is an appropriate exercise endurance measure in patients with COPD. Methods: To validate this assertion, we assembled an integrated database of endurance time responses, including 8 bronchodilator (2,166 subjects) and 15 exercise training (3,488 subjects) studies (Casaburi COPD 2022;9:520). Results: Construct validity was demonstrated: 1) peak physiologic and perceptual responses were similar for constant work rate and incremental cycling; 2) after bronchodilator therapy, there were greater increases in endurance time in patients with more severe airflow limitation; 3) after exercise training, endurance time increases were similar across airflow limitation severities; and 4) there were correlations between changes in endurance time and changes in mechanistically related physiologic and perceptual variables. Test-retest reliability was demonstrated, with consistency of changes in endurance time at two time points after the intervention. Responsiveness was confirmed, with significant increases in endurance time after active (but not placebo) bronchodilator therapy, with greater increases seen with more severe airflow limitation and after exercise training. On the basis of regression analysis using multiple anchor variables, the minimum important difference for endurance time increase is estimated to be approximately 1 minute. Conclusions: Constant work rate cycling endurance time is a valid exercise endurance measure in COPD, suitable for contributing to the evaluation of treatment benefit supporting regulatory decision making and evidence-based therapeutic recommendations.

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.

Endurance Time During Constant Work Rate Cycle Ergometry in COPD: Development of an Integrated Database From Interventional Studies.

Introduction: The COPD Biomarkers Qualification Consortium (CBQC) was formed under COPD Foundation management, with the goal of qualifying biomarkers and clinical outcome assessments through established regulatory processes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Within CBQC, a working group evaluated opportunities for qualification of an exercise endurance measure. In a recent publication (Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2022; 9[2]:252-265), we described a conceptual framework establishing exercise endurance's direct relationship to an individual with COPD's experience of physical functioning in daily life, and that increase in exercise endurance is a patient-centered, meaningful treatment benefit. We further proposed endurance time during constant work rate cycle ergometery (CWRCE) as a useful efficacy endpoint in clinical therapeutic intervention trials. In this current publication, we describe the process of assembling an integrated database of endurance time responses to interventions in COPD. Methods: We sought participant-level data from published studies incorporating CWRCE as an outcome measure. A literature search screened 2993 publications and identified 553 studies for assessment. Two interventions had sufficient data across studies to warrant data extraction: bronchodilators and rehabilitative exercise training. Investigators were contacted and requested to provide participant-by-participant data from their published studies. Results: The final dataset included data from 8 bronchodilator studies (2166) participants and 15 exercise training studies (3488 participants). The database includes 71 variables per participant, comprising demographic, pulmonary function, and detailed physiologic response data. This paper provides a detailed description of the analysis population, while analysis supporting the validation/qualification process and addressing other scientific questions will be described in subsequent publications.

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.

Protocol Summary of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) Validation in Primary Care Study.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often remains undiagnosed and untreated. To date, COPD screening/case finding has not been designed to identify clinically significant COPD, disease ready for therapies beyond smoking cessation. Herein, we describe the ongoing prospective, pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial to assess specificity and sensitivity of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) tool consisting of 5 questions and peak expiratory flow. The tool is designed to identify clinically significant COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <.70 plus FEV1% predicted <60% or increased risk for exacerbation) and the trial will explore the impact of CAPTURE-based screening on COPD diagnosis and treatment rates in primary care patients. Of a total planned enrollment of 5000 English- or Spanish-speaking patients 45 to 80 years of age without a prior COPD diagnosis from 100 primary care practices, a total of 68 practices and 3064 patients have been enrolled in the study. Practices are centrally randomized to either usual care or clinician receipt of patient-level CAPTURE results. All clinicians receive basic COPD education with those in intervention practices also receiving CAPTURE interpretation education. In a single visit, patient participants complete a CAPTURE screening, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and baseline demographic and health questionnaires to validate CAPTURE sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD. One-year follow-up chart reviews and participant surveys assess the impact of sharing versus not sharing CAPTURE results with clinicians on clinical outcomes including level of respiratory symptoms and events and clinicians' initiation of recommendation-concordant COPD care. This is one of the first U.S. studies to validate and assess impact of a simple COPD screening tool in primary care.

Responsiveness of PROMIS® to change in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive chronic disease characterized by airflow obstruction that leads to shortness of breath and substantial negative impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQL). The course of COPD includes periodic acute exacerbations that require changes in treatment and/or hospitalizations. This study was designed to examine the responsiveness of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures to changes associated with COPD exacerbation recovery. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis using mixed-effects models was conducted of people who were enrolled while stable (n = 100) and those who experienced an acute exacerbation (n = 85). PROMIS (physical function, pain interference, pain behavior, fatigue, anxiety, depression, anger, social roles, discretionary social activities, Global Health, dyspnea severity and dyspnea functional limitations) and COPD-targeted HRQL measures were completed at baseline and at 12 weeks. RESULTS: We administered PROMIS measures using computer adaptive testing (CAT), followed by administration of any remaining short form (SF) items that had not yet been administered by CAT. Examination of the difference between group differences from baseline to 12 weeks in the stable and exacerbation groups revealed that the exacerbation group changed (improved) significantly more than the stable group in anxiety (p < .001 to p < .01; f2 effect size [ES] = 0.023/0.021), fatigue (p < .0001; ES = 0.036/0.047) and social roles (p < .001 to p < .05; ES = 0.035/0.024). All effect sizes were small in magnitude and smaller than hypothesized. Depression was also statistically significant (p < .05, SF only) but the ES was trivial. For all other PROMIS domains, the differences were not significant and ES were trivial. CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study provides some support for the validity of the PROMIS fatigue, anxiety, and social roles domains in COPD, but further evaluation of responsiveness is warranted.

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.

Psychometric properties of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: insights from the INPULSIS trials.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the psychometric properties of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) using data from the two INPULSIS trials. METHODS: Data from 1061 patients treated with nintedanib or placebo were pooled. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness and responder thresholds were examined. RESULTS: Cronbach's α was 0.93 for SGRQ total score and >0.75 for domain scores. In patients with stable disease based on change in forced vital capacity (FVC) ≤5% predicted or 'no change' on Patient's Global Impression of Change, intraclass correlation coefficients for the SGRQ total score were 0.72 or 0.76, respectively. Moderate to strong correlations were observed between SGRQ total and domain scores and the Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire cough domains (-0.34 to -0.65), University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (0.56 to 0.83) and EuroQol 5-Dimensional Quality of Life Questionnaire Visual Analogue Scale (-0.41 to -0.55); correlations with FVC % predicted were weak (-0.24 to -0.30). Longitudinal correlations between changes in SGRQ total score and these patient-reported outcomes over 52 weeks were moderate. Changes in SGRQ total, impact and activity scores were sensitive to detecting improvement or deterioration in FVC >10% predicted at week 52. Collectively, distribution-based and anchor-based approaches suggested using a change of 4-5 points in SGRQ total score as a starting point for responder analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the SGRQ support its use as a measure of health-related quality of life in patients with IPF.

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.

Effect of Bronchodilation, Exercise Training, and Behavior Modification on Symptoms and Physical Activity in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

RATIONALE: Bronchodilation and exercise training (ExT) improve exercise tolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, behavior modification is required to impact daily physical activity (PA). OBJECTIVES: To assess whether tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, would improve exercise endurance time (EET) and PA compared with placebo in patients participating in a self-management behavior-modification (SMBM) program. METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomized, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in patients with COPD (PHYSACTO; NCT02085161). All patients were enrolled into SMBM and randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily placebo, tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg, or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg plus 8 weeks ExT. EET, measured by endurance shuttle walk test after 8 weeks, was the primary endpoint. Additional endpoints assessed downstream effects on PA (measured via accelerometry), and activity-related dyspnea and difficulty (using validated patient-reported questionnaires). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: SMBM plus tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, significantly improved EET at Week 8 versus SMBM plus placebo (treatment ratio vs. placebo: with ExT, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.78; P = 0.0002; without ExT, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.57; P = 0.0109). No significant increases in steps per day from baseline were observed over SMBM plus placebo at Week 12 (increase of 1,098) when other therapies were added. Adding tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, to SMBM reduced activity-related dyspnea versus placebo, whereas adding tiotropium/olodaterol plus ExT reduced activity-related difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, improved EET in patients with COPD taking part in an SMBM program. Combination bronchodilation, with or without ExT, did not provide additional increases in objective PA compared with SMBM alone but did reduce PA-related dyspnea and difficulty. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02085161).

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.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. RESULTS: Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71-0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1-day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9-67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.